bogie
Member
So, do any of y'all know a media person who'd be interested in running somewhere with this?
ATF - "Always Think Forfeiture"
- Thread starter Chipperman
- Start date
- Status
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
I suppose if you had any "free" funds left to do so, you would. What do you do if all you have has been seized?
As far as receipts, I've already had problems just trying to explain money I had saved over a couple of years in my safe (gun funds
) to a mortgage company when we were buying a house and wanted to use it for a down payment. They wanted me to prove where I got it from, and would not accept that I had "saved" it. I couldnt prove I didnt and they would not allow it to be used if I couldnt. I had to give it to my father in law, who then gave it back to me as a gift, along with a letter stating such and that it wasnt t be repaid. How do you explain all your "cash" to any government agency that asks? Can you prove every cent you have in cash had the tax paid on it and where you got it from, especially 5 or 10 years down the road?
siglite
Member
Cash is doubleplusungood. Big brother has trouble tracking it. If it's confiscated under forfeiture, it'll be damn near impossible to prove it's legitimately gained.
Sergeant Sabre
Member
I'm sorry to hear that you had trouble using your legally-obtained money. Nonetheless, large amounts of cash will always draw suspicion. Drug business is always done in cash. Legitimate business, especially that on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, is generally done with checks and electronic transfers. Legitimate money isn't usually kept on-hand as cash secreted away in a home, for a variety of reasons. It's just the way of the world.
In terms of forfeiture, cash by itself isn't necessarily indicative of anything. Now, if the DEA finds $200,000 carefully tucked away in a specially-built hidden compartment in the floor of a mini-van that has coke residue all over it, things become pretty clear.
I guess that could be a good point. To contest a forfeiture you must post a cash bond on the property forfeited, in an amount that varies with the value of the property. To be clear, the forfeitures I have dealt with have only been amounts of a few hundred dollars taken from dopers.
General Information
Document Type: Award Notice
Solicitation Number: 840400000029
Posted Date: Nov 14, 2007
Original Archive Date: Apr 26, 2008
Current Archive Date: Apr 26, 2008
Classification Code: 51 -- Hand tools
Contracting Office Address
99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226
Document Type: Award Notice
Solicitation Number: 840400000029
Posted Date: Nov 14, 2007
Original Archive Date: Apr 26, 2008
Current Archive Date: Apr 26, 2008
Classification Code: 51 -- Hand tools
Contracting Office Address
99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226
DoubleTapDrew
Member
All you said is true. However none of it is illegal and it's questionable as to whether it should be probable cause unless you figure the authorities know best. Some people prefer to do business in cash, and some people don't trust banks (some other person's "house") to be the best place to keep everything they've worked hard for. I don't really disagree with what you've said, but it's a dangerous proposal. What's the percentage of $100 bills that have a little coke residue on them? A large stash of cash would probably attract that drug sniffing dog. Maybe you're innocent but your own money is now evidence in a case against you. Bad guys should be prosecuted but you've gotta be really careful that you don't cross the line. Cases against innocent people can be built on little compromises and nuances once you say "well that's ok to prosecute because bad people do that too."
Oh, and the ATF leatherman is sickening and I hope it's a joke. Maybe we can issue judges leathermans that say "Always Think Guilty" on them.
hotpig
Member
It would be pretty funny to put it on their gavel.
Sergeant Sabre
Member
Um, I dunno. I meant that the van had cocaine shake all over it, though, not the money. I wouldn't even bother trying to see what was on the money since that isn't evidence, anyway, given how often money changes hands. In the situation I described above, the source of the cash is quite clear. Especially once you do a forfeiture interview and the driver / "owner" doesn't even know how much is there (dopers never do), nor can they even come up with a feasible story about a legitimate source.
Titan6
member
Does no one else find the irony in this:
Contractor:
OF COURSE SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH COMPANY the irony is lost on me a little.
Contractor:
OF COURSE SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH COMPANY the irony is lost on me a little.
stevelyn
Member
The jack-booted, sturmtruppen thug bastards of the waffen BATFEces don't even try and hide what they are anymore.
siglite
Member
It's the way of the world designed by the federal govt. Buy a car using more than $9999.99 in cash, and big brother's alerted. Why? Because the law says so, that's why. I imagine the other poster who couldn't use cash for his home couldn't do so because of some regulation or other. The law makes it "the way of the world." And before you respond that "well, there you have it, it's the law," you would do well to remember that the attempted arms confiscations by the British were lawful too. As were their taxes, and their import monopoly on the colonies. Just because a thing is lawful, does not make it right.
siglite
Member
I wholeheartedly disagree. You are providing access to knowledge, ideas, and information to your customer base. This would include access to sites like THR. If one customer surfs around and goes "hey, forfeiture laws are a load of crap," and starts calling legiscritters, you've served your republic.
WSM MAGNUM
Member
Well, I see the next Supreme Court Case will be the BATFE vs. U.S. Citizens.
hotpig
Member
You have no idea what they do since they are not Treasury men anymore.
- Status
