Couple has $107k stolen by cops.

[Syriusly]

So you think that they are lucky they were put into prison without any evidence of a crime either?

They were not imprisoned, only detained a few hours for questioning, and they could answer questions given them by the judge, but they cant hire an attorney and wont answer the questions without one. So the judged dismissed their filing for the property to be returned.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

Exactly- Iceweasel says that they were lucky not to lose their freedom- I say it wasn't luck- it was because there was no evidence to prosecute them of a crime with.

Do I think that these couple were probably drug dealers? Sure.

But to me, the chilling thing about this law- and what seems blatantly unconstitutional about this is that the law doesn't require the government prove that the property was legally seized- it requires Americans to prove that that the property was illegally seized.

Probably most of the seizures are of money and property acquired through crimes- but not all of the money and property was- as one example I cited showed- a guy travelling through Nevada had $2400 seized- and eventually got it back- after spending half of that on legal fees.

There is nothing illegal about carrying cash. I don't carry lots of cash on me- but IF I seems particularly un-American to me that I must prove that the cash I am carrying was legally obtained- and subject to seizure at the whim of any law enforcement officer.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

Wrong. They have to convince a judge you got your shit ILLEGALLY. Maybe if the words are big enough they can see them?

There is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

Again- you are just pulling this out of your ass.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

After being stopped by an Illinois State Police trooper for speeding, the couple's Toyota Tundra was searched. No drugs were found, but authorities seized thousands of dollars worth of cash from a suitcase based on the assumption the bills contained traces of drugs. The couple, although detained for several hours, was never charged and eventually allowed to continue on towards their original destination -- a doctor's appointment in Salt Lake City, Utah.

On May 8, 2013, federal prosecutors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Rock Island, requesting the cash be permanently awarded to the government.

The couple, in an answer filed the same month, denied they had been speeding, claimed the vehicle search was unconstitutional and maintained that Mr. Perry had been subject to abusive treatment during hours of police questioning.

A new development in the case came Monday, when Judge Sara Darrow ruled that filings from the couple, including their claim to the funds and answer to the forfeiture complaint, would be stricken, due to the couple's failure to respond to interrogatories, a list of questions by prosecutors regarding the source of the seized funds.

The interrogatories were sent to the couple in June, 2013, and required answers within 20 days. Prosecutors filed a motion Sept. 11, 2013, claiming they had never received answers, which were necessary to prosecute the case. They claimed the couple's failure to answer the interrogatories should prompt their earlier filings to be thrown out.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I said- there is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

Ice Weasel just pulled that out of his ass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Exactly- Iceweasel says that they were lucky not to lose their freedom- I say it wasn't luck- it was because there was no evidence to prosecute them of a crime with.

Do I think that these couple were probably drug dealers? Sure.

But to me, the chilling thing about this law- and what seems blatantly unconstitutional about this is that the law doesn't require the government prove that the property was legally seized- it requires Americans to prove that that the property was illegally seized.

Probably most of the seizures are of money and property acquired through crimes- but not all of the money and property was- as one example I cited showed- a guy travelling through Nevada had $2400 seized- and eventually got it back- after spending half of that on legal fees.

There is nothing illegal about carrying cash. I don't carry lots of cash on me- but IF I seems particularly un-American to me that I must prove that the cash I am carrying was legally obtained- and subject to seizure at the whim of any law enforcement officer.

I think IW means they are lucky the prosecutors decided not to prosecute them too, but who knows? I wont speak on his behalf, but it seems a reasonable interpretation.

Asset forfeiture is, IMO, or should be made unconstitutional. It is a thinly veiled confiscation from a person without them reciving due process.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I said- there is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

The police or prosecutors have to convince a judge to sign off on the seizure, and I think that is what IW is referring to.

 

[Syriusly]

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I said- there is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

The police or prosecutors have to convince a judge to sign off on the seizure, and I think that is what IW is referring to.

I am not certain that is exactly the case- especially not as presented.

I believe that the funds are seized and forfeited unless the owner successfully contests the seizure.

If the owner never contests the seizure- the property is automatically forfeit.

 

[Syriusly]

Exactly- Iceweasel says that they were lucky not to lose their freedom- I say it wasn't luck- it was because there was no evidence to prosecute them of a crime with.

Do I think that these couple were probably drug dealers? Sure.

But to me, the chilling thing about this law- and what seems blatantly unconstitutional about this is that the law doesn't require the government prove that the property was legally seized- it requires Americans to prove that that the property was illegally seized.

Probably most of the seizures are of money and property acquired through crimes- but not all of the money and property was- as one example I cited showed- a guy travelling through Nevada had $2400 seized- and eventually got it back- after spending half of that on legal fees.

There is nothing illegal about carrying cash. I don't carry lots of cash on me- but IF I seems particularly un-American to me that I must prove that the cash I am carrying was legally obtained- and subject to seizure at the whim of any law enforcement officer.

Asset forfeiture is, IMO, or should be made unconstitutional. It is a thinly veiled confiscation from a person without them reciving due process.

In this we are in agreement.

Asset forfeiture is also insidious- as that the funds generally go to the department that makes the seizures. While I believe that the vast majority of law enforcement are not only honest, but attempting to their best to do a difficult job, when the funds go right into their departments budgets.....it can create perverse incentives for departments whose budgets are being cut.

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

Wrong. They have to convince a judge you got your shit ILLEGALLY. Maybe if the words are big enough they can see them?

There is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

Again- you are just pulling this out of your ass.

LOL. So they had the trial to inspect each others' crotches I suppose.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, they didn't. You need to either quit while you are way behind or learn how to read and research and post responsibly

If the property was not convicted of being drug money and the judge sign off on it, then they could not have legally seized the money.

Ice Weazel is right, but about a point you dont seem to grasp; the property was 'proven' guilty, not the couple.

No- Ice Weasel is not right.

According to the very article he researched and cited- there is not one word of 'the property was not convicted of being drug money'- the money was first seized- and then kept when the couple refused to answer questions.

Again- according to the information we have- rather than the crap Ice Weasel pulls out of his ass- the was never a determination that the money seized was 'illegal'- rather that the owners of the cash didn't properly fight to get their money back from the government.

Didn't properly fight for their money? RETARD!

 

[Iceweasel]

Your head disappeared up your ass long ago. I don't have to prove anything, you retarded asshole! You say it was not legal, the onus is on you to prove it wasn't legal. I'm not the one saying they were wrong.

Of course you don't have to prove anything- and how could you since you were lying out your ass when you said

Wrong. They did prove it was drug money, that's why it was transferred into federal hands.

Yes, they proved it to the judge. Retard.

No, they didn't. You need to either quit while you are way behind or learn how to read and research and post responsibly

You asked for the link I mentioned so you didn't even read the thread. You don't know what up or down is besides forward or behind. So you think the judge didn't agree the scales, pot smell and cash pointed to drug money? OK, Sport. Why was it transfered then?

You claimed that it was 'proven' that the money was drug money- and you even said you had posted the citation in this thread.

But as I enjoy continuing to point out- that is just a lie- your article never claims that the money was ever proven to be 'drug money'- you just pulled that out of your ass

Weasels post:
OK, I did a little snooping since agenda driven people couldn't give a **** less about researching the other side of the story they want cemented into our minds. First off, it's not just "the cops", there have been legal hearings and court rulings. Here's a few snippets that fill in some missing parts the internet "investigators" couldn't find. Took me two minutes.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

On May 8, 2013, federal prosecutors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Rock Island, requesting the cash be permanently awarded to the government.

A new development in the case came Monday, when Judge Sara Darrow ruled that filings from the couple, including their claim to the funds and answer to the forfeiture complaint, would be stricken, due to the couple's failure to respond to interrogatories, a list of questions by prosecutors regarding the source of the seized funds.

The complaint says officers continued to search the vehicle and came upon a collapsible baton and a pistol, located in a removable plastic panel, in the center console.

A canine dog was called in and alerted to a smell near the rear passenger door. The complaint says the trooper found $102,000 in Ziploc bags in a suitcase. Two duffel bags -- one smelling of cannabis, according to the trooper -- plus, two vacuum sealers, two one-gallon ice cream tubs and an electronic scale were located in the bed of the truck, and approximately $5,520 was recovered from Mrs. Perry's wallet.

Yep, Dumbfuck. They showed the evidence to a judge. But you can't understand why. Waa, too bad.

 

[Iceweasel]

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I said- there is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

The police or prosecutors have to convince a judge to sign off on the seizure, and I think that is what IW is referring to.

I am not certain that is exactly the case- especially not as presented.

I believe that the funds are seized and forfeited unless the owner successfully contests the seizure.

If the owner never contests the seizure- the property is automatically forfeit.

Your beliefs aren't relevant to why they lost the money. It was made illegally. If is was legal...here's where it gets tricky ...they would have demonstrated where it came from. Duh!

 

[EverCurious]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

Wrong. They have to convince a judge you got your shit ILLEGALLY. Maybe if the words are big enough they can see them?

Not true, but regardless, terrorism is "illegal" and in fact one of the bigger suspected reasons they /can/ take property.

"Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the state. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses. Some jurisdictions specifically use the term "confiscation" instead of forfeiture. The purpose of asset forfeiture is to disrupt criminal activity by confiscating assets that potentially could have been beneficial to the individual or organization.

[...]

It is hard for authorities to track, confiscate, and disrupt terrorist organization finances because they can come from a variety of sources—such as other countries, supporting sympathizers, crime, or legal businesses. Terrorist groups can profit from many crimes—such as black mail, robbery, extortion, fraud, drug trafficking, etc. If discovered and proven terrorist assets, authorities can confiscate property to disrupt terrorist activities. Understanding what constitutes 'terrorist property' is important, because these offenses are widely defined by the 2000 Act as;"

1. Property or money that is likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism (including any resources of an organization)
2. Proceeds of the commission of acts of terrorism
3. Proceeds of acts actually carried out for the purposes of terrorism."[23]

The 2000 Act brought a new system for the forfeiture of terrorist cash. This was modeled on the UK's drug-trafficking cash seizure process and allowed for the seizure of cash for 48 hours by a constable, customs officer or immigration officer if reasonable grounds were found for suspecting that it was intended to be used for terrorism or was terrorist property. An officer who seized the assets or cash could apply to a magistrates' court for an order authorizing its continued detention to give time for further investigation into where it came from. The magistrates' court is generally satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cash was intended to be used for the purposes of terrorism or was terrorist property, then it could make a forfeiture order.
" ~ as per Wiki and of key note on that see:

"On April 17, 2014, the State of Texas seized the YFZ Ranch, a one time Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community that housed as many as 700 people when it was raided by Texas on March 29, 2008.[31][32] Under Texas law, authorities can seize property that was used to commit or facilitate certain criminal conduct.[31][32]" ~ Refresher on that particular case here Texas takes possession of polygamous ranch and note "The Texas attorney general in 2012 went to court to seize the ranch. The state alleged the ranch was an asset in a criminal enterprise in which Jeffs and his followers conspired to marry and have sex with underage girls."


So yea, they can indeed seize a mosque, just have to suspect its being involved in a terrorist organization... Not to big a stretch given what was uncovered when they searched mosques in EU... It'd only take /one/ member, not even the mosque's legal owner, just /one/ member who engaged in terrorism and the mosque is fair game.

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

Wrong. They have to convince a judge you got your shit ILLEGALLY. Maybe if the words are big enough they can see them?

Not true, but regardless, terrorism is "illegal" and in fact one of the bigger suspected reasons they /can/ take property.

"Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the state. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses. Some jurisdictions specifically use the term "confiscation" instead of forfeiture. The purpose of asset forfeiture is to disrupt criminal activity by confiscating assets that potentially could have been beneficial to the individual or organization.

[...]

It is hard for authorities to track, confiscate, and disrupt terrorist organization finances because they can come from a variety of sources—such as other countries, supporting sympathizers, crime, or legal businesses. Terrorist groups can profit from many crimes—such as black mail, robbery, extortion, fraud, drug trafficking, etc. If discovered and proven terrorist assets, authorities can confiscate property to disrupt terrorist activities. Understanding what constitutes 'terrorist property' is important, because these offenses are widely defined by the 2000 Act as;"

1. Property or money that is likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism (including any resources of an organization)
2. Proceeds of the commission of acts of terrorism
3. Proceeds of acts actually carried out for the purposes of terrorism."[23]

The 2000 Act brought a new system for the forfeiture of terrorist cash. This was modeled on the UK's drug-trafficking cash seizure process and allowed for the seizure of cash for 48 hours by a constable, customs officer or immigration officer if reasonable grounds were found for suspecting that it was intended to be used for terrorism or was terrorist property. An officer who seized the assets or cash could apply to a magistrates' court for an order authorizing its continued detention to give time for further investigation into where it came from. The magistrates' court is generally satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cash was intended to be used for the purposes of terrorism or was terrorist property, then it could make a forfeiture order.
" ~ as per Wiki and of key note on that see:

"On April 17, 2014, the State of Texas seized the YFZ Ranch, a one time Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community that housed as many as 700 people when it was raided by Texas on March 29, 2008.[31][32] Under Texas law, authorities can seize property that was used to commit or facilitate certain criminal conduct.[31][32]" ~ Refresher on that particular case here Texas takes possession of polygamous ranch and note "The Texas attorney general in 2012 went to court to seize the ranch. The state alleged the ranch was an asset in a criminal enterprise in which Jeffs and his followers conspired to marry and have sex with underage girls."


So yea, they can indeed seize a mosque, just have to suspect its being involved in a terrorist organization... Not to big a stretch given what was uncovered when they searched mosques in EU... It'd only take /one/ member, not even the mosque's legal owner, just /one/ member who engaged in terrorism and the mosque is fair game.

What isn't true? Terrorism is legal where you are?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

Wrong. They have to convince a judge you got your shit ILLEGALLY. Maybe if the words are big enough they can see them?

There is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

Again- you are just pulling this out of your ass.

LOL. So they had the trial to inspect each others' crotches I suppose.

Again- you are just pulling this out of your ass- there was no 'trial'

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

After being stopped by an Illinois State Police trooper for speeding, the couple's Toyota Tundra was searched. No drugs were found, but authorities seized thousands of dollars worth of cash from a suitcase based on the assumption the bills contained traces of drugs. The couple, although detained for several hours, was never charged and eventually allowed to continue on towards their original destination -- a doctor's appointment in Salt Lake City, Utah.

On May 8, 2013, federal prosecutors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Rock Island, requesting the cash be permanently awarded to the government.

The couple, in an answer filed the same month, denied they had been speeding, claimed the vehicle search was unconstitutional and maintained that Mr. Perry had been subject to abusive treatment during hours of police questioning.

A new development in the case came Monday, when Judge Sara Darrow ruled that filings from the couple, including their claim to the funds and answer to the forfeiture complaint, would be stricken, due to the couple's failure to respond to interrogatories, a list of questions by prosecutors regarding the source of the seized funds.

The interrogatories were sent to the couple in June, 2013, and required answers within 20 days. Prosecutors filed a motion Sept. 11, 2013, claiming they had never received answers, which were necessary to prosecute the case. They claimed the couple's failure to answer the interrogatories should prompt their earlier filings to be thrown out.

 

[Syriusly]

No, they didn't. You need to either quit while you are way behind or learn how to read and research and post responsibly

If the property was not convicted of being drug money and the judge sign off on it, then they could not have legally seized the money.

Ice Weazel is right, but about a point you dont seem to grasp; the property was 'proven' guilty, not the couple.

No- Ice Weasel is not right.

According to the very article he researched and cited- there is not one word of 'the property was not convicted of being drug money'- the money was first seized- and then kept when the couple refused to answer questions.

Again- according to the information we have- rather than the crap Ice Weasel pulls out of his ass- the was never a determination that the money seized was 'illegal'- rather that the owners of the cash didn't properly fight to get their money back from the government.

Didn't properly fight for their money? RETARD!

You call me a 'retard' because I point out that you are just lying- just pulling crap out of your ass?

There must be a lot of 'retards' in your life.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course you don't have to prove anything- and how could you since you were lying out your ass when you said

Wrong. They did prove it was drug money, that's why it was transferred into federal hands.

Yes, they proved it to the judge. Retard.

No, they didn't. You need to either quit while you are way behind or learn how to read and research and post responsibly

You asked for the link I mentioned so you didn't even read the thread. You don't know what up or down is besides forward or behind. So you think the judge didn't agree the scales, pot smell and cash pointed to drug money? OK, Sport. Why was it transfered then?

You claimed that it was 'proven' that the money was drug money- and you even said you had posted the citation in this thread.

But as I enjoy continuing to point out- that is just a lie- your article never claims that the money was ever proven to be 'drug money'- you just pulled that out of your ass

Weasels post:
OK, I did a little snooping since agenda driven people couldn't give a **** less about researching the other side of the story they want cemented into our minds. First off, it's not just "the cops", there have been legal hearings and court rulings. Here's a few snippets that fill in some missing parts the internet "investigators" couldn't find. Took me two minutes.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

On May 8, 2013, federal prosecutors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Rock Island, requesting the cash be permanently awarded to the government.

A new development in the case came Monday, when Judge Sara Darrow ruled that filings from the couple, including their claim to the funds and answer to the forfeiture complaint, would be stricken, due to the couple's failure to respond to interrogatories, a list of questions by prosecutors regarding the source of the seized funds.

The complaint says officers continued to search the vehicle and came upon a collapsible baton and a pistol, located in a removable plastic panel, in the center console.

A canine dog was called in and alerted to a smell near the rear passenger door. The complaint says the trooper found $102,000 in Ziploc bags in a suitcase. Two duffel bags -- one smelling of cannabis, according to the trooper -- plus, two vacuum sealers, two one-gallon ice cream tubs and an electronic scale were located in the bed of the truck, and approximately $5,520 was recovered from Mrs. Perry's wallet.

Yep, Dumbfuck. They showed the evidence to a judge. But you can't understand why. Waa, too bad.

What evidence? Again you are just pulling this all out of your ass

OK, I did a little snooping since agenda driven people couldn't give a **** less about researching the other side of the story they want cemented into our minds. First off, it's not just "the cops", there have been legal hearings and court rulings. Here's a few snippets that fill in some missing parts the internet "investigators" couldn't find. Took me two minutes.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

On May 8, 2013, federal prosecutors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Rock Island, requesting the cash be permanently awarded to the government.

A new development in the case came Monday, when Judge Sara Darrow ruled that filings from the couple, including their claim to the funds and answer to the forfeiture complaint, would be stricken, due to the couple's failure to respond to interrogatories, a list of questions by prosecutors regarding the source of the seized funds.

The complaint says officers continued to search the vehicle and came upon a collapsible baton and a pistol, located in a removable plastic panel, in the center console.

A canine dog was called in and alerted to a smell near the rear passenger door. The complaint says the trooper found $102,000 in Ziploc bags in a suitcase. Two duffel bags -- one smelling of cannabis, according to the trooper -- plus, two vacuum sealers, two one-gallon ice cream tubs and an electronic scale were located in the bed of the truck, and approximately $5,520 was recovered from Mrs. Perry's wallet.[/QUOTE]Yep, Dumbfuck. They showed the evidence to a judge. But you can't understand why. Waa, too bad

 

[Syriusly]

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I said- there is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

The police or prosecutors have to convince a judge to sign off on the seizure, and I think that is what IW is referring to.

I am not certain that is exactly the case- especially not as presented.

I believe that the funds are seized and forfeited unless the owner successfully contests the seizure.

If the owner never contests the seizure- the property is automatically forfeit.

Your beliefs aren't relevant to why they lost the money. It was made illegally. If is was legal...here's where it gets tricky ...they would have demonstrated where it came from. Duh!

If is was legal...here's where it gets tricky ...they would have demonstrated where it came from.

Yeah- I can see why you would think that would be tricky.....

 

[Iceweasel]

No, they didn't. You need to either quit while you are way behind or learn how to read and research and post responsibly

If the property was not convicted of being drug money and the judge sign off on it, then they could not have legally seized the money.

Ice Weazel is right, but about a point you dont seem to grasp; the property was 'proven' guilty, not the couple.

No- Ice Weasel is not right.

According to the very article he researched and cited- there is not one word of 'the property was not convicted of being drug money'- the money was first seized- and then kept when the couple refused to answer questions.

Again- according to the information we have- rather than the crap Ice Weasel pulls out of his ass- the was never a determination that the money seized was 'illegal'- rather that the owners of the cash didn't properly fight to get their money back from the government.

Didn't properly fight for their money? RETARD!

You call me a 'retard' because I point out that you are just lying- just pulling crap out of your ass?

There must be a lot of 'retards' in your life.

What lie did I tell? I can you a retard because you are jaw dropping stupid.

 

[Syriusly]

About the only way we could get Ice Weasel to oppose Asset Forfeiture is if law enforcement were to seize cattle from Cliven Bundy.....


Oh right- that is when he opposed asset forfeiture.....by "Big Government"....

 

[Iceweasel]

snivel......

What do they do in court rooms? Thank on it reeeeeal hard Gomer.

edit, you fucked up the quotes.

 

[Iceweasel]

About the only way we could get Ice Weasel to oppose Asset Forfeiture is if law enforcement were to seize cattle from Cliven Bundy.....


Oh right- that is when he opposed asset forfeiture.....by "Big Government"....

Liar, you can't understand conversations, so you just hate people that don't agree with you. What does Bundy have to do with this, how is it the same thing?

This is what I said
"Dang, I'll try the cliff notes version but how could you not know? He was paying grazing fees until they changed the rules and severely limited the number of cattle allowed. That wasn't doable for him and he couldn't get a permit for more. The large fee now is mostly in fines. There was no problem with the tortoises and cattle sharing the space, it was government taking over what the locals used for a long time.

They could have nabbed his ass in town but wanted to make a show at let folks know who's the boss. It was over the top heavy handedness. It isn't about who Bundy is as a man. People didn't know him, that's not why they showed up in support. Whether he's the biggest liar or racist ever doesn't change anything."

Not quite the same thing Gome.