OnePercenter
Gold Member
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,880
- 265
He's also full of shit.
Réfuter mon poste canadienne
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He's also full of shit.
I think it was the courts that started this crap along with no knock searches and random traffic stops.I think seizing the assets of citizens on the mere suspicion of a crime is a travesty and gross violation of due process. These laws need to be scrapped either by the courts or by the legislators.
It's very telling that our government now considers holding cash "suspicous".
They'd much rather that we all keep every single penny as an electronic asset, which makes money easier to seize and control.
The G20 have basically rigged the game so that bank deposits are no longer money:
Large deposits at banks are no longer money, as this legislation will formally push them down through the capital structure to a position of material capital risk in any "failing" institution. In our last financial crisis, deposits were de facto guaranteed by the state, but from November 16th holders of large-scale deposits will be, both de facto and de jure, just another creditor squabbling over their share of the assets of a failed bank.
Interestingly, HM Treasury uses the word ‘failing’ rather than "failed" in its consultation document and investors could find their large deposits frozen for a prolonged period in any "failing" institution while the courts unpick the capital structure and decide exactly where any losses should fall.
If we have another Lehman Brothers collapse, large-scale depositors could find themselves in the courts for years before final adjudication on the scale of their losses could be established. During this period would this illiquid asset, formerly called a deposit and now subject to an unknown capital loss, be considered money? Clearly it would not, as its illiquidity and likely decline in nominal value would make it unacceptable as a medium of exchange....
Russell Napier Declares November 16 2014 The Day Money Dies Zero Hedge
There are legions of people doing time for white collar crime. Look at Martha Stewart, who was jailed for basically tlaking to someone.It is practically impossible to convict individuals involved in white collar crime no matter how clearly guilty they are. We have sent people to their deaths on far less evidence than it takes to get a serious investigation into corporate wrongdoing that all too often end in a negligible fine and no recompense to victims.I think that asset seizure is used far too few times. When it came out how Enron had screwed over every person they did business with, including their own employees, the whole of the upper management should have had 100% of their assets seized and sold to pay those people some of the financial damage to them that management had done.So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?
Before they were convicted of anything? So the government should be able to go up to anyone accused of a crime and take all their stuff?
That dog wont hunt.
I think it was the courts that started this crap along with no knock searches and random traffic stops.I think seizing the assets of citizens on the mere suspicion of a crime is a travesty and gross violation of due process. These laws need to be scrapped either by the courts or by the legislators.
There are legions of people doing time for white collar crime. Look at Martha Stewart, who was jailed for basically tlaking to someone.
That dog wont hunt.
Insider trading is now 'basically tlaking to someone.'
Bullshit. Quote the reg that says I have to prove where the money came from.That isnt a response.
Holding 10k in cash is not money laundering. It is holding 10k in cash.
Police confiscate assets unrelated to the crime and out of proportion to the evidence. Getting them returned is expensive and time consuming and often out of the range of the average person.
The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens. You have to prove where the money came from.
The issue is due process. The police have to apply to the courts in order to keep the assets. A hearing is held. You have the right to challenge. There is your due process.
It's very telling that our government now considers holding cash "suspicous".
They'd much rather that we all keep every single penny as an electronic asset, which makes money easier to seize and control.
The G20 have basically rigged the game so that bank deposits are no longer money:
Large deposits at banks are no longer money, as this legislation will formally push them down through the capital structure to a position of material capital risk in any "failing" institution. In our last financial crisis, deposits were de facto guaranteed by the state, but from November 16th holders of large-scale deposits will be, both de facto and de jure, just another creditor squabbling over their share of the assets of a failed bank.
Interestingly, HM Treasury uses the word ‘failing’ rather than "failed" in its consultation document and investors could find their large deposits frozen for a prolonged period in any "failing" institution while the courts unpick the capital structure and decide exactly where any losses should fall.
If we have another Lehman Brothers collapse, large-scale depositors could find themselves in the courts for years before final adjudication on the scale of their losses could be established. During this period would this illiquid asset, formerly called a deposit and now subject to an unknown capital loss, be considered money? Clearly it would not, as its illiquidity and likely decline in nominal value would make it unacceptable as a medium of exchange....
Russell Napier Declares November 16 2014 The Day Money Dies Zero Hedge
Criminals tend to have large amounts of cash.
If you don't want another financial crisis stop voting for Republicans.
No, it isnt.
I knew a thread liek this would smoke out the real statist assholes. You rose right to the bait.
There's that "no person deprived of life liberty or property withouut due process" thing you keep forgetting. Getting arrested is not a conviction. Getting arrested is not due process. I could arrest you right now for impersonating a police officer.
The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens.
The police have to apply to the courts in order to keep the assets. A hearing is held. You have the right to challenge. There is your due process.
Which may end up being mroe than the money that was seized. In which case why bother?No, it isnt.
I knew a thread liek this would smoke out the real statist assholes. You rose right to the bait.
There's that "no person deprived of life liberty or property withouut due process" thing you keep forgetting. Getting arrested is not a conviction. Getting arrested is not due process. I could arrest you right now for impersonating a police officer.
The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens.
The police have to apply to the courts in order to keep the assets. A hearing is held. You have the right to challenge. There is your due process.
And you have to pay for an attorney to make your case and probably court fees...
Which may end up being mroe than the money that was seized. In which case why bother?No, it isnt.
I knew a thread liek this would smoke out the real statist assholes. You rose right to the bait.
There's that "no person deprived of life liberty or property withouut due process" thing you keep forgetting. Getting arrested is not a conviction. Getting arrested is not due process. I could arrest you right now for impersonating a police officer.
The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens.
The police have to apply to the courts in order to keep the assets. A hearing is held. You have the right to challenge. There is your due process.
And you have to pay for an attorney to make your case and probably court fees...
and the loss of ownership has to be comparable to the crime. One should not lose 10k in cash over a hash pipe.
10K in cash without a bank receipt is money laundering.
So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?
No, it isnt.
I knew a thread liek this would smoke out the real statist assholes. You rose right to the bait.
There's that "no person deprived of life liberty or property withouut due process" thing you keep forgetting. Getting arrested is not a conviction. Getting arrested is not due process. I could arrest you right now for impersonating a police officer.
The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens.
The police have to apply to the courts in order to keep the assets. A hearing is held. You have the right to challenge. There is your due process.
Asset forfeiture is a terrible policy which violates due process and is easily abused by corrupt government employees. Like they really need more encouragement....
Sure! Lets help criminals as much as possible.
I don't think that there should be an automatic assumption that large amounts of cash is only related to drug use.
When you also have a hash pipe?
Want to have a little fun? The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens.
So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?
Bullshit. Quote the reg that says I have to prove where the money came from.
Bullshit. Quote the reg that says I have to prove where the money came from.
FAQs Regarding Reporting Cash Payments of Over 10 000 Form 8300