My point being this could be drug related money. I also live in Illinois and in my neck of the woods, a "little grass" is breaking the law and can get you a fine and jail time. Its not often you see 400k and drugs in the same house that aren't related.
FBI steals crime victim's money
- Thread starter Lightmeup
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
My point being this could be drug related money. I also live in Illinois and in my neck of the woods, a "little grass" is breaking the law and can get you a fine and jail time. Its not often you see 400k and drugs in the same house that aren't related.
Lightraven
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
To those who don't know, the government is allowed to seize items that are illegal or illegally gained. This is nothing new and the founding fathers were probably well informed of the practice.
This article is basically written by the man trying to get his money back. Does the article mention how many arrests for selling drugs the man has? Does the article mention if a drug detector dog alerted on the cash? Does the article mention whether the cash is in low demoninations? Do the robbers have anything to say about why they targeted that particular home? Were the guns used legally purchased or were they seized also? Doesn't have cash to pay for a lawyer?--Go to the FBI and make a claim to get your money back. If they refuse, go to court and make the claim. No lawyer needed.
People think $400 grand can just be seized for no legitimate reason? I seize items all the time after an arrest--mostly drugs, weapons, and phony identification. Occasionally a car or boat is seized when used for a felony, but I have only personally seen a couple cash seizures because tying cash to a crime is difficult--even if the criminal is carrying it on him at the time he is arrested. In other words, he gets arrested with $1500 in cash, he may or may not go to prison, but will leave with $1500.
The procedure to seize $400K isn't to throw it in a grocery bag and leave. There is a big paper trail and tons of photocopying of the bills by two agents (one copies, the other witnesses). The FBI may be a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. They aren't going to seize that kind of cash without having some serious evidence that it is illegally obtained--if just to avoid all the work of doing the seizure.
This article is basically written by the man trying to get his money back. Does the article mention how many arrests for selling drugs the man has? Does the article mention if a drug detector dog alerted on the cash? Does the article mention whether the cash is in low demoninations? Do the robbers have anything to say about why they targeted that particular home? Were the guns used legally purchased or were they seized also? Doesn't have cash to pay for a lawyer?--Go to the FBI and make a claim to get your money back. If they refuse, go to court and make the claim. No lawyer needed.
People think $400 grand can just be seized for no legitimate reason? I seize items all the time after an arrest--mostly drugs, weapons, and phony identification. Occasionally a car or boat is seized when used for a felony, but I have only personally seen a couple cash seizures because tying cash to a crime is difficult--even if the criminal is carrying it on him at the time he is arrested. In other words, he gets arrested with $1500 in cash, he may or may not go to prison, but will leave with $1500.
The procedure to seize $400K isn't to throw it in a grocery bag and leave. There is a big paper trail and tons of photocopying of the bills by two agents (one copies, the other witnesses). The FBI may be a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. They aren't going to seize that kind of cash without having some serious evidence that it is illegally obtained--if just to avoid all the work of doing the seizure.
powernoodle
Flashlight Enthusiast
The news article only gives one side of the story. So to refer to the Justice Department's action as "theft" requires a leap of faith I am not willing to make. Especially when the complainers are the ACLU and a toga wearing pot smoker who magically has most of half a mil in cash sitting around.
We don't know the facts, nor the Justice Department's basis for its action. Until we know more, I'm more than willing to assume - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - that the Justice Dept's action was supported by the law. If the law needs to be changed, thats a matter for the legislature. JMO.
We don't know the facts, nor the Justice Department's basis for its action. Until we know more, I'm more than willing to assume - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - that the Justice Dept's action was supported by the law. If the law needs to be changed, thats a matter for the legislature. JMO.
A "little grass" is breaking the law. It's a misdemeanor and the first offense is a $50 ticket. No jail. If this guy was found with kilos of grass I would give the cops the benefit of the doubt, but he didn't even have enough to get a drug possession charge. I'll bet you could find that much pot in at least 20% of the homes in Chicago with someone under 30 y.o. living there. In the absence of due process and no charges filed against the guy, this is just plain legalized robbery. They did it because they could get away with it.
The fact that it "could" be drug-related money is a possibility. But there is no evidence to show that it is likely. You can't assume that just because someone has a lot of money stashed at home that it was obtained illegally. That flies in the face of everything this country is supposed to stand for. When did "assumed guilty, convicted, and sentenced with no trial" replace "innocent until proven guilty?"
Also, letting the cops keep the money for their own use is one of the worst conflict-of-interest scenarios that could be contrived. It's like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.
Then the FBI should be the ones proving he didn't earn it legally. It's B.S. that a person who hasn't even been charged with a crime should have to prove that it's his money.
What is he supposed to do? Pull out almost 6 decades worth of receipts?
buschpounder
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2007
- Messages
- 25
All we know about the incident is from a news article that the gentleman with the missing money was the source. That might make it a little one-sided. We know dope was found and money was taken. Police would need probable cause to correlate the two and be able to take the money. I would guess it was enough dope to at least make a reasonable person to belive he was in some way, or someone else in the house,a dealer. Just because charges haven't been filed as of yet doesn't mean there won't be in the future. It taked time to conduct an in depth investigation. I wonder why he isn't asking for his dope back too?
The money was more likely confiscated because of the large sum, in comparison to the lifestyle the man has. If he lived in a "nicer" neighborhood, drove a "nice" car or two, and owned a few "nice" things; no one would be suspicious. Go into Trump's neighborhood, investigate a burglary call to one of his neighbors home, find over $400,000 in cash in a bedroom safe, and see what happens.
Lightraven
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
I know not everybody here has the benefit of working a narcotics investigation with the feds. Why is the FBI involved at all? Could it be there is an open investigation by the FBI or DEA? Maybe they have an informant, undercover agent and/or wiretap? The FBI in particular doesn't work the small stuff and no federal agency I've worked with gives a damn about personal use amounts of marijuana and would never seize anything but the drugs themselves in a personal use amount, especially from a victim of a robbery.
I realize the newspaper story doesn't give all the information, but imagine for a moment there is more to the story and the the FBI, like everybody else, is trying to arrest criminals and seize their illegal assets, NOT personal marijuana users that describes most federal agents themselves and their families at some point in their lives.
I realize the newspaper story doesn't give all the information, but imagine for a moment there is more to the story and the the FBI, like everybody else, is trying to arrest criminals and seize their illegal assets, NOT personal marijuana users that describes most federal agents themselves and their families at some point in their lives.
One of the reasons this nation was founded was to prevent the crown from confiscating property. "Ill gotten gains" is just a ruse to overturn one of the most cherished foundations of our nation. It is amazing how quickly that has been erased. For no reason should a person's property be confiscated.
We don't have debt prison or some of the other failings of the crown we left behind. I wonder how long that will last with so many of you unconcerned about the loss of the freedoms this nation possessed in the past.
How many people can prove how they earned their money over a life time? So if this guy didn't keep his pay stubs for 40 years he doesn't get his money back? This is nothing short of theater of the absurd.
If you keep your money in the bank, due to the government allowing our secret identities to be traded like stocks between financial institutions, you are taking an unreasonable risk due to identity theft. Now keeping the cash under your pillow also has become an unreasonable risk, not due to the crooks, but the supposed good guys? Yeah, keep the rationalizations coming. You are just selling out yourself and every other American at the same time. We all work too hard to risk the government treating us as pawns this way in some agenda that may or may not be clear. I wonder how many 2nd amendment advocates would brush off this issue. I guess they would only care if this guy had a store room full of firearms he collected as an investment for his retirement and these were confiscated? How is cash any more suspicious than that? Get a clue. Freedoms are freedoms. It's a house of cards if you think you can selectively protect some and toss the others away. Freedoms are built one on top of the other; regardless of how unrelated they may appear to special interests and single issue advocates.
We don't have debt prison or some of the other failings of the crown we left behind. I wonder how long that will last with so many of you unconcerned about the loss of the freedoms this nation possessed in the past.
How many people can prove how they earned their money over a life time? So if this guy didn't keep his pay stubs for 40 years he doesn't get his money back? This is nothing short of theater of the absurd.
If you keep your money in the bank, due to the government allowing our secret identities to be traded like stocks between financial institutions, you are taking an unreasonable risk due to identity theft. Now keeping the cash under your pillow also has become an unreasonable risk, not due to the crooks, but the supposed good guys? Yeah, keep the rationalizations coming. You are just selling out yourself and every other American at the same time. We all work too hard to risk the government treating us as pawns this way in some agenda that may or may not be clear. I wonder how many 2nd amendment advocates would brush off this issue. I guess they would only care if this guy had a store room full of firearms he collected as an investment for his retirement and these were confiscated? How is cash any more suspicious than that? Get a clue. Freedoms are freedoms. It's a house of cards if you think you can selectively protect some and toss the others away. Freedoms are built one on top of the other; regardless of how unrelated they may appear to special interests and single issue advocates.
jayflash
Flashlight Enthusiast
Marijuana isn't a narcotic and should not be illegal. Drug industry profits, the prison industry and law enforcement job security are the only reasons pot remains illegal.
If alcohol and cigarettes were held to the same legal standards as other drugs, they'd be classified with heroin and oxycontin for ease of addiction, not to mention the great physical damage they cause.
Drug laws allow the circumvention of constitutional rights and civil liberties.
The war on drugs is worse and more costly than the drugs themselves.
Vote accordingly.
Now the mods can close this thread.
Peace and end the war.
If alcohol and cigarettes were held to the same legal standards as other drugs, they'd be classified with heroin and oxycontin for ease of addiction, not to mention the great physical damage they cause.
Drug laws allow the circumvention of constitutional rights and civil liberties.
The war on drugs is worse and more costly than the drugs themselves.
Vote accordingly.
Now the mods can close this thread.
Peace and end the war.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nuff said
Nuff said
James S
Flashlight Enthusiast
lightraven makes a good point. I hadn't even thought of that. Why was the FBI there at all? They dont do this sort of thing at all. So there is more going on here. The guy might still be a victim of circumstances, but this isn't how they operate and wouldn't have bothered to even show up to take on the case if it's all as it was reported.
More than meets the press here...
More than meets the press here...
Minjin
Flashlight Enthusiast
Any links to the 65 trillion dollar house? Somehow I am finding that hard to believe.
Why is it everytime this subject comes up, the Pro Legalization side always basically says the same thing.... "Weed isn't as bad as booze and cigs." What a great way of saying that all three should be avoided.
Close the thread? So you can get the final word? Nice try....
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The law of forfeiture basically says you have to prove you're innocent. It's terrible, terrible law".
I never said it was a good law, but it is the law.
[/FONT]
Any links to the 65 trillion dollar house? Somehow I am finding that hard to believe.
$65,000,000 is 65million with an "M" 65trillion would be 65,000,000,000.00.
gadget_lover
Flashaholic
Any links to the 65 trillion dollar house? Somehow I am finding that hard to believe.
Yeah, I knew annotating it like that was a mistake right after I posted it. The word millions was to emphasize that it was not thousands, but millions.
I believe the trillion dollar house is a big white one on Pennsylvania Ave. (judging by my taxes)
Daniel
LightInTheWallet
Newly Enlightened
'All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury vs. Madison, (1803)
Nothing is likely to change unless such laws are challenged in court by someone directly affected by them.... But that's not likely to happen since all of his money and property will have already been confiscated. No money to fight such a case in court.
Minjin
Flashlight Enthusiast
Only if the court decides it to be. BTW, please don't fabricate quotes.
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
