Man fights off robbers, has cash stolen by the FBI

[Warren]

http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047j


First it was taken by the local cops and then the Feds stepped in and grabbed it saying the man could not prove he earned it.

[Brad Johnson]

Yep, sacrificing a little security for safety is a good thing.  Just ask this guy (or anyone else who's had their hard-earned money stolen by the govt. because they "couldn't prove they earned it.")

Every time I see something like this I'd like to wring the necks of the big-govt crowd and the govt goons they want empower even more.

 

Brad

[Tallpine]

Every time I see something like this I'd like to wring the necks of the big-govt crowd and the govt goons they want empower even more.

You'd get awful tired ... that is an awful lot of necks

[roo_ster]

Hey, you gotta keep an eye on those retired steel foundry workers so they don't get uppity and decide to accumulate cash over the years.

[Manedwolf]

That $400k has likely already been spent on office furniture or parties training. Seized assets and all...

Silly man. You're not allowed to secret money away, you're either supposed to have it in a BANK so it can be kept track of, or spend it on plastic electronics and consumer crap from China.

Why, what would happen to our voracious consumer-driven consumption economy if more people put away money like this?

Ahh yes. Right.

That's why.

[Paddy]

Bullshit. NOBODY has $400k in cash in their house unless they got it illegally.

[Manedwolf]

Bullshit. NOBODY has $400k in cash in their house unless they got it illegally.

Either you're being sarcastic, or your armband is on order.

[Finch]

Bullshit. NOBODY has $400k in cash in their house unless they got it illegally.

Regardless, even if he did get it illegally the burden of proof SHOULD be on the FBI. Reminds me a lot of this story - http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=6979363&nav=AbC0

And how did the FED's seize jurisdiction over this? I don't see anything about this case (or in the constitution) that would nessecitate federal intervention. I guess cash is a lot harder to track and those thugs don't like it because it make their beloved PATRIOT act harder to use.

[Paddy]

Oh, I completely agree.  The government has no business taking the man's money. IF he got it illegally, they should prosecute him for whatever crimes he committed.  Instead, they take the route of 'confiscating' his money.  It's wrong, but NOBODY will do anything about it.  Not him, nor anyone else.  So either do something about it or STFU, ok?   This has happened before and will happen again, yet all we do is bitch about it on some internet board. 

[Manedwolf]

Unless one of the victims manages to get it all the way up to the supreme court, I'm not sure what can be done.

[Paddy]

And don't forget, the 'Patriot Act' was the work of a REPUBLICAN President and a REPUBLICAN Congress.  So go ahead, vote REPUBLICAN again, ye suckers.

[grampster]

This confiscation thing has already been settled by the SCOTUS iirc.  It's based on some obscure 18th century law of the sea.  The decision came out of a deal where a man was arrested while attempting to pick up a hooker and the police confiscated his car.  His wife objected because the car was titled in her name, not her husbands.  Tough buns sayeth the court.  I think it was in Detroit.

[Finch]

And don't forget, the 'Patriot Act' was the work of a REPUBLICAN President and a REPUBLICAN Congress.  So go ahead, vote REPUBLICAN again, ye suckers.

It's not just the republicans. The Senate nearly unanimously approved it. 98 Senators voted for it, one Dem didn't and one was absent. The House was a little wiser, but not by much 357-66. 211 Republicans and 145 Dems said yes to this piece of garbage legislation. Fortunetly out of the three House Republicans who happened to vote no on this, one of them is running for president. Smart guy I tells ya.

[Dannyboy]

Never mind the fact that asset forfeiture laws are more closely related to the war on drugs and really don't have much to do with the war on terror or the Patriot Act.

[De Selby]

This confiscation thing has already been settled by the SCOTUS iirc.  It's based on some obscure 18th century law of the sea.  The decision came out of a deal where a man was arrested while attempting to pick up a hooker and the police confiscated his car.  His wife objected because the car was titled in her name, not her husbands.  Tough buns sayeth the court.  I think it was in Detroit.

It's not that obscure-it's an in rem proceeding in most cases.

Ie, it's a legal action against the physical property, not the person. That isn't that obscure; it's been used in civil actions for quite some time.  The law of the sea thing you're thinking of may be that in maritime law, you can sue a ship in rem and hold it liable for damages. 

The best thing to do is to get politicians that pass laws forbidding the executive from doing this; unfortunately, that would be seen as "soft on drugs", and they'd lose their campaigns.

[WeedWhacker]

And don't forget, the 'Patriot Act' was the work of a REPUBLICAN President and a REPUBLICAN Congress.  So go ahead, vote REPUBLICAN again, ye suckers.

It's not just the republicans. The Senate nearly unanimously approved it. 98 Senators voted for it, one Dem didn't and one was absent. The House was a little wiser, but not by much 357-66. 211 Republicans and 145 Dems said yes to this piece of garbage legislation. Fortunetly out of the three House Republicans who happened to vote no on this, one of them is running for president. Smart guy I tells ya.

This wouldn't be that doctor fella from Texas, would it?

[seeker_two]

And don't forget, the 'Patriot Act' was the work of a REPUBLICAN President and a REPUBLICAN Congress.  So go ahead, vote REPUBLICAN again, ye suckers.

It's not just the republicans. The Senate nearly unanimously approved it. 98 Senators voted for it, one Dem didn't and one was absent. The House was a little wiser, but not by much 357-66. 211 Republicans and 145 Dems said yes to this piece of garbage legislation. Fortunetly out of the three House Republicans who happened to vote no on this, one of them is running for president. Smart guy I tells ya.

This wouldn't be that doctor fella from Texas, would it?

The more I hear about that guy, the more I'm tempted to vote for him......

B/t the Islamofascists & the Fedofascists, I'm not sure who I should be more afraid of. At least the IF's want to just kill me outright.... 

[Tallpine]

Unless one of the victims manages to get it all the way up to the supreme court, I'm not sure what can be done.

Oh, I could think of some things .....   

[Manedwolf]

The more I hear about that guy, the more I'm tempted to vote for him......

Four years of Jimmy Carter with an R letting the terrorists regroup and attack us, four years of the dollar following the peso while the black-helicopter-tinfoil-nuts run gibbering in the streets, feeling validated?

No thanks.

[Brad Johnson]

Bullshit. NOBODY has $400k in cash in their house unless they got it illegally.

Your "Bullshit" is, well... Bullshit.  Four hundred grand is $8000 a year for 50 years.  If you live simply and keep all your extra money in cash it would be do-able.

Brad

[Paddy]

Or $10k a year for forty years, or $13,333.34 a year for 30 years, of $20k a year for 20 years..............

[Finch]

Four years of Jimmy Carter with an R letting the terrorists regroup and attack us

That's only if you buy into that whole "They hate us for our freedoms" B.S. And we are already letting them  regroup. How does the Iraq Cluster**** stop terrorism? It doesn't. All it does is piss off more Muslims. And that is the reason we have a terrorist threat, not because of our freedoms, but because we don't mind our own damn business. /rant

four years of the dollar following the peso

Yeah, after all, our dollar is doing marvelous right now.

[Manedwolf]

And that is the reason we have a terrorist threat, not because of our freedoms, but because we don't mind our own damn business. /rant

Because that worked so well before WWII, when dealing with other expansionist agressors.

[Jamisjockey]

Bullshit. NOBODY has $400k in cash in their house unless they got it illegally.

WTF ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It oughta be the gooberment's burden to prove he got it illegally, not the other way around.

[Perd Hapley]

So IS there a connection to the USAP Act here, or is that just the usual Riley re-direction?