 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2007What was first done for the vehicle again is done for the home
http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047j Man wants his $400K back from the FBI Greg Sowinski | gsowinski@limanews.com - 12.18.2007 LIMA . Two robbers who broke into Luther Ricks Sr..s house this summer may have not gotten his life savings he had in a safe, but after the FBI confiscated it he may not get it back. Ricks has tried to get an attorney to fight for the $402,767 but he has no money. Lima Police Department officers originally took the money from his house but the FBI stepped in and took it from the Police Department. Ricks has not been charged with a crime and was cleared in a fatal shooting of one of the robbers but still the FBI has refused to return the money, he said. .They are saying I have to prove I made it,. he said. The 63-year-old Ricks said he and his wife, Meredith, saved the money during their lifetime in which both worked while living a modest life. <...> Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks. home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain. .I smoke marijuana. I have arthritis. I have shingles, a hip replacement,. he said. Ricks, who is retired from Ohio Steel Foundry, said he always had a safe at home and never had a bank account. <...> American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Legal Director Jeff Gamso said Ricks has a tough road ahead, not impossible, but tough to get back his money. .The law of forfeiture basically says you have to prove you.re innocent. It.s terrible, terrible law,. he said. The law is tilted in favor of the FBI in that Ricks need not be charged with a crime and the FBI stands a good chance at keeping the money, Gamso said. .The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,. he said. <...> .The FBI, before they would give it up, would want dated receipts,. he said. ------------------------------------------------ I'm sure the usual suspects will chime in for the defense of the police stealing this man's money. > http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047j > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > I'm sure the usual suspects will chime in for the defense of the police > stealing this man's money. No, I'm not just going to ignore this: "Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain." Medical Marijuana is legal where? That's right, it's not--it's still illegal everywhere, even though some states just turn a blind eye to it while others crack down on Marijuana possession and use as the illegal controlled substance it still is. Were it not for that, I would have argued there was no reason for the FBI to keep his money. But, since illegal drugs were found, of course they should confiscate the money as suspected drug money. Keep in mind, he never denied the possession and use of Marijuana. The FBI is still within the law. (Also, who keeps their entire life savings in a safe??? Put some of it in the bank, and some of it in a safe, so that if robbers break in, not all of the money is gone.) As for proving it was earned legitimately, assuming he properly filed taxes year after year, it should be as easy as contacting the IRS for copies of filed tax returns and earnings statements. Daniel W. Rouse Jr.: > No, I'm not just going to ignore this: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > crack down on Marijuana possession and use as the illegal controlled > substance it still is. From the article, "Ricks has not been charged with a crime and was cleared in a fatal shooting of one of the robbers but still the FBI has refused to return the money, he said." And what exactly has Mr. Ricks been convicted of? > Were it not for that, I would have argued there was no reason for the FBI to > keep his money. But, since illegal drugs were found, of course they should > confiscate the money as suspected drug money. > > Keep in mind, he never denied the possession and use of Marijuana. The FBI > is still within the law. He still has not been convicted of a crime. Just because the last three presidential dictatorships have been wiping their a.s with the Constitution doesn't make it right for them to do what they did. Or have you, like the bushes and clintons, forgotten what due process is? > (Also, who keeps their entire life savings in a safe??? Put some of it in > the bank, and some of it in a safe, so that if robbers break in, not all of > the money is gone.) Good point, but having the money in a bank does not mean that the fbi or others won't sieze the bank accounts on any whim they can think of - that is, of course unless its a Swiss bank. > As for proving it was earned legitimately, assuming he properly filed taxes > year after year, it should be as easy as contacting the IRS for copies of > filed tax returns and earnings statements. And by the time that the irs gets finished dragging its a.s on the matter, the guy will be dead and buried. > Good point, but having the money in a bank does not mean that the fbi or > others won't sieze the bank accounts on any whim they can think of - > that is, of course unless its a Swiss bank. The government has done that to a number of people. >> http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047j >> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > crack down on Marijuana possession and use as the illegal controlled > substance it still is. Because you're a control freak and need to tell other people what they can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the government what we consume into our own bodies in our own homes? What if the government banned your favorite food? What then? > Were it not for that, I would have argued there was no reason for the FBI to > keep his money. But, since illegal drugs were found, of course they should > confiscate the money as suspected drug money. With no trial. No jury. No nothing. A pure police state authoritarian. I knew this story would get people to show their true colors. > Keep in mind, he never denied the possession and use of Marijuana. The FBI > is still within the law. If you ignore the bill of rights. > (Also, who keeps their entire life savings in a safe??? Put some of it in > the bank, and some of it in a safe, so that if robbers break in, not all of > the money is gone.) Some people don't trust banks. And given whats going on with the pyramid of fractional reserve banking close to collaspe I don't blame him. Look up how much cash money there really is compared to digits in a computers. Take a look at how much banks actually have on hand to pay deposits vs. what they loaned out. And if the massive chain reaction tumble does occur, it might be months or years before the FDIC gets around to paying your claim if at all. > As for proving it was earned legitimately, assuming he properly filed taxes > year after year, it should be as easy as contacting the IRS for copies of > filed tax returns and earnings statements. They want his pay stubs. Of course they know nobody keeps decades of pay stubs. >> No, I'm not just going to ignore this: >> >> "Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks home, >> which Ricks said he had to help manage pain." >> Medical Marijuana is legal where? That's right, it's not--it's still illegal >> everywhere, even though some states just turn a blind eye to it while others >> crack down on Marijuana possession and use as the illegal controlled >> substance it still is. > Because you're a control freak and need to tell other people what they ^apparently ^ or think that the government should tell > can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the > government what we consume into our own bodies in our own homes? What if > the government banned your favorite food? What then? corrections above. my bad. Brent P: > > can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the > > government what we consume into our own bodies in our own homes? What if > > the government banned your favorite food? What then? That may not be too far off. If the war on, "trans-fats," is any indication.  Signature-- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin > >> http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047j > >> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > government what we consume into our own bodies in our own homes? What if > the government banned your favorite food? What then? No, I'm simply not going to defend someone's "liberty" to possess and use what is illegal. If they choose to possess and use an illegal drug, then they already accept that they may suffer the consequences, even if no formal charges of a crime are filed. Thus, they accept that they will lose the drugs and forfeit their monetary assets because that's what the law allows when drugs are found. > > Were it not for that, I would have argued there was no reason for the FBI to > > keep his money. But, since illegal drugs were found, of course they should > > confiscate the money as suspected drug money. > > With no trial. No jury. No nothing. A pure police state authoritarian. I > knew this story would get people to show their true colors. This isn't a rights issue at all. They found his drugs as part of the investigation of the robbery. They didn't specifically do a drug bust and it's his own fault that he left the drugs where they could be found during the investigation. The law is being followed, sorry if you don't like the law then take it up with the courts. [snip...] > I'm simply not going to defend someone's "liberty" to possess and use > what is illegal. A plant that grows naturally ? That will happily grow in your back yard. What do you think hemp ropes were made of ? How the hell did we get to the situation where the goverment made a plant that will grow in your garden illegal ? Jesus Christ ! Graham >> I'm simply not going to defend someone's "liberty" to possess and use >> what is illegal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jesus Christ ! Would be interesting if some of it grew wild in the backyards of these law is the law take everything they have people. It does grow wild in much of the US. So much pot was grown outdoors in forest preserves it's certain that the seeds have spread naturally. >> I'm simply not going to defend someone's "liberty" to possess and use >> what is illegal. > >A plant that grows naturally ? That will happily grow in your back yard. What do >you think hemp ropes were made of ? How the hell did we get to the situation >where the goverment made a plant that will grow in your garden illegal ? So how many pot plants do you have growing in your back yard? > No, I'm simply not going to defend someone's "liberty" to possess and use > what is illegal. Effectively the same thing, but instead of being one who seeks control you're the house slave going 'massa going to be angry if you do that'. Obeying the masters because the masters say so. They know what's best for us. You don't want to think beyond that. You don't care beyond what our masters say. > If they choose to possess and use an illegal drug, then > they already accept that they may suffer the consequences, even if no formal > charges of a crime are filed. Thus, they accept that they will lose the > drugs and forfeit their monetary assets because that's what the law allows > when drugs are found. Heaven forbid someone think he's a free man and able to make his own decisions about his own body. >> With no trial. No jury. No nothing. A pure police state authoritarian. I >> knew this story would get people to show their true colors. > This isn't a rights issue at all. They found his drugs as part of the > investigation of the robbery. They didn't specifically do a drug bust and > it's his own fault that he left the drugs where they could be found during > the investigation. > The law is being followed, sorry if you don't like the law then take it up > with the courts. Maybe when some government employed thug decides to take your stuff without a charge, without a trial, without any reason except his gang has more guns than you, you'll understand. There is little difference between these cops and the home invaders. Most of that difference being the cops were successful. Daniel W. Rouse Jr.: > No, I'm simply not going to defend someone's "liberty" to possess and use > what is illegal. If they choose to possess and use an illegal drug, then > they already accept that they may suffer the consequences, even if no formal > charges of a crime are filed. Thus, they accept that they will lose the > drugs and forfeit their monetary assets because that's what the law allows > when drugs are found. OK, so let's throw out the rest of the Constitution as well (since you want to throw out the right to due process of law and innocent untill proven guilty). You know, that peskey, "supreme law of the land," thingy that spells out the rights of the People of this once free land. I'll start with that First Ammendment thingy that gives people the right to say what's on their minds..... Signature"I love this country... ...and the freedoms we used to have..." --George Carlin > > Because you're a control freak and need to tell other people what they > > can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > drugs and forfeit their monetary assets because that's what the law allows > when drugs are found. Talk about missing the point. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > > Because you're a control freak and need to tell other people what they > > > can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? Um, even without being charged with a crime, he didn't deny possession or use of the Marijuana that was found during the investigation of the robbery. That's as good as pleading guilty even without going through the court process, it's practically a confession of possession and use of an illegal substance. Again, the investigation wasn't specifically a drug bust and it's his own fault he is in the situation he is in with the money lost for discovery of the drugs. As for the money, if none of it is drug-related money then he should be able to contact the IRS. Someone else mentioned the FBI wanted earnings statements? He should be able to get copies of those from his employer. This still isn't a rights issue, though, and the police and FBI are still within the law. It's up to those who object to the law to take it up with the courts if they want the law changed and keep in mind the courts may decide the law is actually constitutional. A rights issue would be more like the police and FBI taking the money WITHOUT having found anything illegal that was subject to the asset seizure laws. THEN that's a bone fide rights issue. >>>>Because you're a control freak and need to tell other people what they >>>>can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > WITHOUT having found anything illegal that was subject to the asset seizure > laws. THEN that's a bone fide rights issue. Good lord, do you actually believe the crap that you're typing, or are you just a really skilled troll? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>Because you're a control freak and need to tell other people what they > >>>>can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > nate So now I'm a troll because I side with the law and law enforcement in this case? Interesting. Medical Marijuana is still a political issue, but as far as the laws are concerned, it's still *ILLEGAL* to possess and use it. He had it, he used it, he didn't deny either possession or use. HE BROKE THE LAW, EVEN IF HE WASN'T CHARGED WITH A CRIME, AND THE LAW PERMITS SEIZURE OF THE DRUGS AND MONETARY ASSETS AS SUSPECTED DRUG MONEY. Again: he obviously knew the police were going to investigate after the robbery, he knew that he had illegal drugs in his possession that he was using, he presumably knew that the law allowed seizure of the drugs and monetary assets and then he does not deny possession and use of the drugs. Clearly, this isn't "police state" stuff, it just isnt. The police didn't bust in unannounced, they didn't perform a warrantless search, they didn't specifically do a drug bust. It's his own fault he left illegal drugs in a place that they could be found during a post-robbery investigation. It is unfortunate that he lost so much money, but then again he should have invested some in various banks and also kept some in his safe. He also has a way to get the money back, he just needs to do it. Some ways he can do that are to contact the IRS for past tax returns, he can also contact his employer for copies of earnings statements. Sorry, but I just don't have a 100% hate for all law enforcement and all laws like some others may have. I call wrong when it's clear (such as Taser abuse incidents that result in injury or death) but in this case, no laws are being broken in this issue. If tomorrow, someone busted in to my place and robbed stuff from it, the police would find *zero* illegal substances in my place and would have *zero* reason to seize any monetary assets. If tommorow, a food, or an over-the-counter medicine, or whatever became illegal, then I would more than likely toss it out. For example, if they decided aspirin was illegal tomorrow, then I'd toss it as there is still Acetominophen and Ibuprofin as a legal over the counter painkillers for the occasional headache or injury. But, if I chose to continue to possess and use aspirin despite the hypothetical scenario of it becoming illegal, then I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to have aspirin in plain sight if the police had to investigate my place after a hypothetical robbery. So again, this isn't a rights issue. If the laws need to be changed or abolished, that's what the courts are for. (And if the courts continue to find that the laws are constitutional then the people DO need to follow the laws.) >>>>>>Because you're a control freak and need to tell other people what they >>>>>>can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > WASN'T CHARGED WITH A CRIME, AND THE LAW PERMITS SEIZURE OF THE DRUGS AND > MONETARY ASSETS AS SUSPECTED DRUG MONEY. The law is wrong. You know and I know that the guy wasn't dealing, otherwise we would have been told "he was dealing." Pot shouldn't be illegal in the fitst place because drug laws have caused more societal problems than pot itself, and seizure laws shouldn't be on the books because they allow gross miscarriages of justice like this to occur. Just because something is legal does not make it right. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > So now I'm a troll because I side with the law and law enforcement in this > case? Interesting. It would be nice if you sided with the people, liberty, and basically live and let live nature instead of controlling government. For crying out loud, what on earth should allow a government to tell people what they can put in their own body in their own homes? > Medical Marijuana is still a political issue, but as far as the laws are > concerned, it's still *ILLEGAL* to possess and use it. He had it, he used > it, he didn't deny either possession or use. HE BROKE THE LAW, EVEN IF HE > WASN'T CHARGED WITH A CRIME, AND THE LAW PERMITS SEIZURE OF THE DRUGS AND > MONETARY ASSETS AS SUSPECTED DRUG MONEY. THE LAW IS WRONG! damnit, think for yourself. > Clearly, this isn't "police state" stuff, it just isnt. The police didn't > bust in unannounced, they didn't perform a warrantless search, they didn't > specifically do a drug bust. It's his own fault he left illegal drugs in a > place that they could be found during a post-robbery investigation. And when they take someone's money in a traffic stop, it's because they stopped the guy for 'speeding' or some such. The parallel I drew should be obvious to a dead cat. > It is unfortunate that he lost so much money, but then again he should have > invested some in various banks and also kept some in his safe. He also has a > way to get the money back, he just needs to do it. Some ways he can do that > are to contact the IRS for past tax returns, he can also contact his > employer for copies of earnings statements. It's his fault because he didn't do things the way you do them. He didn't do it the way the majority does so f.ck him, it's his own stupid fault, eh? A free country allows a person to be DIFFERENT. Just because he's different shouldn't make him subject to such abuses. Daniel W. Rouse Jr.: > So now I'm a troll because I side with the law and law enforcement in this > case? Interesting. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > WASN'T CHARGED WITH A CRIME, AND THE LAW PERMITS SEIZURE OF THE DRUGS AND > MONETARY ASSETS AS SUSPECTED DRUG MONEY. They took his money and they have no proof that *any* of it was obtained illegally. And on that line, why didn't they sieze the house, his vehicles and any other assest he has? Afterall, the money that bought those assests must have come from the same place in the narrow minded view that the american (sic) police state holds. > Again: he obviously knew the police were going to investigate after the > robbery, he knew that he had illegal drugs in his possession that he was > using, he presumably knew that the law allowed seizure of the drugs and > monetary assets and then he does not deny possession and use of the drugs. Have you ever read the Constitution? Particularly this passage: "Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " > Clearly, this isn't "police state" stuff, it just isnt. The police didn't > bust in unannounced, they didn't perform a warrantless search, they didn't > specifically do a drug bust. It's his own fault he left illegal drugs in a > place that they could be found during a post-robbery investigation. Bull. THe money was taken on a flimsy excuse. This is a clear cut case of armed robbery on the part of the police and the fbi. > It is unfortunate that he lost so much money, but then again he should have > invested some in various banks and also kept some in his safe. He also has a > way to get the money back, he just needs to do it. Some ways he can do that > are to contact the IRS for past tax returns, he can also contact his > employer for copies of earnings statements. ROTFLMAO!!! And by the time that the irs gets around to providing same (probablly with some encouragement from the fbi), this guy will be dead and buried and the money long, long gone. > Sorry, but I just don't have a 100% hate for all law enforcement and all > laws like some others may have. I call wrong when it's clear (such as Taser > abuse incidents that result in injury or death) but in this case, no laws > are being broken in this issue. If tomorrow, someone busted in to my place > and robbed stuff from it, the police would find *zero* illegal substances in > my place and would have *zero* reason to seize any monetary assets. Then they will make sonething up and sieze anyway. Have fun living on the streets. > If tommorow, a food, or an over-the-counter medicine, or whatever became > illegal, then I would more than likely toss it out. For example, if they > decided aspirin was illegal tomorrow, then I'd toss it as there is still > Acetominophen and Ibuprofin as a legal over the counter painkillers for the > occasional headache or injury. But, if I chose to continue to possess and And I could see big pharma prodding the government to make OTC painkillers illegal. Thanks for giving them the idea. > use aspirin despite the hypothetical scenario of it becoming illegal, then I > certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to have aspirin in plain sight if the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > find that the laws are constitutional then the people DO need to follow the > laws.) Signature-- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin > Daniel W. Rouse Jr.: >> If tommorow, a food, or an over-the-counter medicine, or whatever became >> illegal, then I would more than likely toss it out. For example, if they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And I could see big pharma prodding the government to make OTC > painkillers illegal. Thanks for giving them the idea. Big pharma is trying to make vitamins and supplements illegal right now. Ron Paul of course is the one fighting for us to make our own dietary choices. Most of these laws that ban things for our own good are basically the result of an economic war be waged by lobbiests and other purchasers of elected office holders. Another current example is the animal ID act. It requires a lot of record keeping and tracking and reporting of animals to the government. It's crushing to family farms but is not too difficult for giant agri-business to comply. It's being supported by the large agri-business companies of course since it will have a harsh impact on their competition. >Medical Marijuana is still a political issue, but as far as the laws are >concerned, it's still *ILLEGAL* to possess and use it. He had it, he used >it, he didn't deny either possession or use. HE BROKE THE LAW, EVEN IF HE >WASN'T CHARGED WITH A CRIME, AND THE LAW PERMITS SEIZURE OF THE DRUGS AND >MONETARY ASSETS AS SUSPECTED DRUG MONEY. And said law is a textbook violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition on depriving a person of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law. >are being broken in this issue. If tomorrow, someone busted in to my place >and robbed stuff from it, the police would find *zero* illegal substances in >my place and would have *zero* reason to seize any monetary assets. Unless of course the person busting in dropped his dimebag somewhere in the process. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > > > > Because you're a control freak and need to tell other people what they > > > > can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > process, it's practically a confession of possession and use of an illegal > substance. No. It is *not* as good as pleading guilty. > Again, the investigation wasn't specifically a drug bust and it's his own > fault he is in the situation he is in with the money lost for discovery of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to contact the IRS. Someone else mentioned the FBI wanted earnings > statements? He should be able to get copies of those from his employer. It's still a principle of our laws that we don't have to prove ourselves to be innocent. > This still isn't a rights issue, though, and the police and FBI are still > within the law. It's up to those who object to the law to take it up with > the courts if they want the law changed and keep in mind the courts may > decide the law is actually constitutional. Of course it's a rights issue. > A rights issue would be more like the police and FBI taking the money > WITHOUT having found anything illegal that was subject to the asset seizure > laws. THEN that's a bone fide rights issue. Nope. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." >>>>>Because you're a control freak and need to tell other people what they >>>>>can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. WTF buisiness is it of yours or the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > No. It is *not* as good as pleading guilty. Actually it does not even necessarily mean that he was charged with anything, not even simple posession. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >No, I'm simply not going to defend someone's "liberty" to possess and use >what is illegal. If they choose to possess and use an illegal drug, then >they already accept that they may suffer the consequences, even if no formal >charges of a crime are filed. Fifth Amendment violation right there. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > "Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks home, > which Ricks said he had to help manage pain." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > crack down on Marijuana possession and use as the illegal controlled > substance it still is. Because the USA has an absurd fixation with any substance the government deems illegal is that really an adequate excuse to rob someone of their life savings ? In the UK marijuana possesion when it's clearly in personal use quantities is considered almost less than a minor misdemeanour these days. The typical way of dealing with it is by a 'caution' which is basically an official 'telling off' by the police. Marijuana needs to be legalised for properly supervised medical use. It's absurd it was ever placed in its current position. Imagine if the same were done to opiates ! Graham Eeyore: > Marijuana needs to be legalised for properly supervised medical use. It's absurd > it was ever placed in its current position. Imagine if the same were done to > opiates ! The liquor industry and big pharma *hate* competition. SignatureSincerely, The New World Order. > As for proving it was earned legitimately, assuming he properly filed taxes > year after year, it should be as easy as contacting the IRS for copies of > filed tax returns and earnings statements. There's no way that will show personal savings in cash. Graham >I'm sure the usual suspects will chime in for the defense of the police >stealing this man's money. Is it defending the "theft" to say that this man is a complete dumbass? Only an idiot would keep his "life savings" at home in a safe. Burglars can steal it. It can burn up in a fire. At the very least, its value will ebb away day by day as inflation takes its toll. If this stupid f.ck had invested that money over the past 40 years, it would be in the millions of dollars instead of just $400,000. It's also pretty stupid to keep illegal drugs around your house, ESPECIALLY when you've just shot somebody and the cops are on their way. Even if you smoke pot for medicinal purposes, flush the stash down the toilet before you call 911. However, I also think that the RICO statutes give the police far too much latitude. Being a dumbass is not a crime, and this guy didn't deserve to lose his life savings. > Only an idiot would keep his "life savings" at home in a safe. > Burglars can steal it. It can burn up in a fire. At the very least, > its value will ebb away day by day as inflation takes its toll. If > this stupid f.ck had invested that money over the past 40 years, it > would be in the millions of dollars instead of just $400,000. Nothing keeps your money safe from the inflation of fiat money. Do the math. You have to be earning returns that imply a level of risk where odds are, sooner or later one is going to take losses. Remember you have to make the rate of inflation PLUS the amount you are taxed on the 'gain'. (if you make 5% and inflation is 5% you LOST money because the government calls the 5% you made a 'gain' and taxes it) And use consistant inflation numbers, not the ever changing government formula. > It's also pretty stupid to keep illegal drugs around your house, > ESPECIALLY when you've just shot somebody and the cops are on their > way. Even if you smoke pot for medicinal purposes, flush the stash > down the toilet before you call 911. > However, I also think that the RICO statutes give the police far too > much latitude. Being a dumbass is not a crime, and this guy didn't > deserve to lose his life savings. The point is, this was the sort of thing cops did at the side of the road. Now it's they are doing it in people's homes. > >I'm sure the usual suspects will chime in for the defense of the police > >stealing this man's money. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Only an idiot would keep his "life savings" at home in a safe. Distrusting banks makes one an IDIOT ? The UK goverment had to step in recently to save the British bank Northern Rock from failure due to its involvement in lending in the sub-prime mortgage market at a cost somewhre in the region of £1,500 per UK taxpayer ! Had they not done that, many peoples' savings may well have been lost. These things CAN happen Graham >> >I'm sure the usual suspects will chime in for the defense of the police >> >stealing this man's money. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Distrusting banks makes one an IDIOT ? Yep. And failing to invest one's money to at least keep pace with inflation makes one an even BIGGER IDIOT. >The UK goverment had to step in recently to save the British bank Northern >Rock from failure due to its involvement in lending in the sub-prime >mortgage market at a cost somewhre in the region of £1,500 per UK taxpayer ! We have similar safeguards here: FDIC, FSLIC, and the occasional government bailout (e.g. the S&L bailout back in the 80s). Your money is a LOT safer in a bank than it is in your home. >These things CAN happen Yeah, and the sun CAN go nova tomorrow. >>> >I'm sure the usual suspects will chime in for the defense of the police >>> >stealing this man's money. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yep. And failing to invest one's money to at least keep pace with > inflation makes one an even BIGGER IDIOT. investing to keep up with inflation is gambling. You have to gamble just to stay even. Sure you can hedge bets by being in a bunch of different things, but as you do that it gets more difficult to maintain an over up side that keeps up with inflation. There there is illusion in the markets too.... so people don't 'lose' money in the markets, the federal reserve inflates, as it has been doing since august. >>The UK goverment had to step in recently to save the British bank Northern >>Rock from failure due to its involvement in lending in the sub-prime >>mortgage market at a cost somewhre in the region of £1,500 per UK taxpayer ! > We have similar safeguards here: FDIC, FSLIC, and the occasional > government bailout (e.g. the S&L bailout back in the 80s). Your money > is a LOT safer in a bank than it is in your home. How does the FDIC insure your money? With the only tool the government has, creating more money, ie inflation. >>>> >I'm sure the usual suspects will chime in for the defense of the police >>>> >stealing this man's money. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >things, but as you do that it gets more difficult to maintain an over up >side that keeps up with inflation. Tell me, which loses less to inflation: $400,000 invested in a CD at 5%, or $400,000 sitting in a safe in your basement? >> We have similar safeguards here: FDIC, FSLIC, and the occasional >> government bailout (e.g. the S&L bailout back in the 80s). Your money >> is a LOT safer in a bank than it is in your home. > >How does the FDIC insure your money? With the only tool the government >has, creating more money, ie inflation. Still better than losing it all to theft. >>>>> >I'm sure the usual suspects will chime in for the defense of the police >>>>> >stealing this man's money. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>things, but as you do that it gets more difficult to maintain an over up >>side that keeps up with inflation. > Tell me, which loses less to inflation: $400,000 invested in a CD at > 5%, or $400,000 sitting in a safe in your basement? That depends on what that 5% does to your income taxes. What we really need is sound money. Anyway even if he doesn't understand the games one needs to play with fiat money, that doesn't justify or excuse what occured. He should be free to do as he chooses. >>> We have similar safeguards here: FDIC, FSLIC, and the occasional >>> government bailout (e.g. the S&L bailout back in the 80s). Your money >>> is a LOT safer in a bank than it is in your home. >>How does the FDIC insure your money? With the only tool the government >>has, creating more money, ie inflation. > Still better than losing it all to theft. *IF* and *WHEN* the FDIC pays off. One could also insure it at their own cost privately. >>>How does the FDIC insure your money? With the only tool the government >>>has, creating more money, ie inflation. > >> Still better than losing it all to theft. > >*IF* and *WHEN* the FDIC pays off. Worst case, if they don't pay off, it's no worse than keeping the money at home. But the upside is a lot brighter. >One could also insure it at their own cost privately. LOL!!! So tell me, where do I go to get this "RICO Insurance" policy? Do the Good Hands People offer it? :) >>>>How does the FDIC insure your money? With the only tool the government >>>>has, creating more money, ie inflation. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Worst case, if they don't pay off, it's no worse than keeping the > money at home. But the upside is a lot brighter. Depends on what one considers the biggest risk. >>One could also insure it at their own cost privately. > LOL!!! So tell me, where do I go to get this "RICO Insurance" policy? > Do the Good Hands People offer it? :) The government is the biggest thief. If you think =money in the banking system is safe from government, well that's delusional. The physical cash is safers from government >The government is the biggest thief. If you think =money in the banking >system is safe from government, well that's delusional. The physical cash >is safers from government I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Well, actually, I am - your anti-government goggles are on and functioning. These RICO seizures are crimes of opportunity; the cops see cash lying around, and they take it. In the incident described in this thread, had that $400,000 been on deposit in a bank or an investment account, as opposed to lying aruond in plain sight, the cops would never have known about it, let alone seized it. >>The government is the biggest thief. If you think =money in the banking >>system is safe from government, well that's delusional. The physical cash >>is safers from government > > I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Well, actually, I am > - your anti-government goggles are on and functioning. No, I just have more knowledge. > These RICO seizures are crimes of opportunity; the cops see cash lying > around, and they take it. In the incident described in this thread, > had that $400,000 been on deposit in a bank or an investment account, > as opposed to lying aruond in plain sight, the cops would never have > known about it, let alone seized it. These same laws have been used to take cars, homes, and bank accounts. The government has more knowledege of your finances in the system than outside of it. Especially with all the post 9-11 terrorism crap. It's very easy to take money or deny you access to it when it's in the system. Cash is off the grid and they have to physically show up and search to know about it. > .The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,. he said. So much for your allegedly 'free' country ! That's a totally shocking story. Graham >> .The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,. he said. > > So much for your allegedly 'free' country ! I've said for some time that freedom has become an illusion. We are only free to do choose like everyone else and so long as we aren't doing anything different and get on the government radar screen. And BTW, in your country, the man who defended his house would have gone to prison and then the family of the dead home invader would have successfully sued him for the money. He'd actually be worse off. No money and locked up. > >> .The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,. he said. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then the family of the dead home invader would have successfully sued > him for the money. He'd actually be worse off. No money and locked up. He would have gone to prison if he'd used a gun for sure. But then he's very unlikely to have a gun and neither are the burglars. There's no law against defending yourself from intruders though. Graham >> >> .The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,. he said. >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > There's no law against defending yourself from intruders though. Really? You might want to read the BBC stories of people in your country being proscuted, sued, etc for defending themselves and/or their homes with everything from firearms to knives to clubs. Eeyore: > > .The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,. he said. > > So much for your allegedly 'free' country ! What free country? I thought we were talking about the USA? > That's a totally shocking story. Just par for the course in america (sic). Signature-- Presidential numerology: Name: Ronald Wilson Reagan Letter Count: 6 6 6 Numbers Together: 666 On Dec 22, 12:37 pm, necromancer > Eeyore: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What free country? I thought we were talking about the USA? You do mean the current People's Republic of america (sic) in which the 50 entities normally called 'states' are more like provinces? > > That's a totally shocking story. > > Just par for the course in america (sic). > > -- > -- Exactly, and trending worse. -- "When I was a kid, this was a free country." - G. Gordon Liddy MLOM: > On Dec 22, 12:37 pm, necromancer > > Eeyore: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You do mean the current People's Republic of america (sic) in which > the 50 entities normally called 'states' are more like provinces? Yeah, that one. I guess the poster thought we were discussing Venezuela. > > > That's a totally shocking story. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- > Exactly, and trending worse. Hopefully, Jan 20, 2009 will portend change, but I am not betting my life on it... > -- > > "When I was a kid, this was a free country." - G. Gordon Liddy IAWT.S * -- Signature"I love this country... ...and the freedoms we used to have..." --George Carlin * I Agree With This .Sig |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.