BajaNomad

Careful at La Linea. Civil forfeiture.

aguachico - 8-14-2014 at 05:53 PM

read the sign. you need to declare $10k or more.
Can't fix stupid

DaliDali - 8-14-2014 at 06:04 PM

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/08/feds_78-...

The woman LIED at least 5 times.

bajabuddha - 8-14-2014 at 06:57 PM

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

bring on the gif's

DaliDali - 8-14-2014 at 07:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajabuddha
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

bring on the gif's


No charges were filed. Innocent or guilt is a non event.

Even if there were charges and the events are accurate, pretty tough to claim innocence when the woman is pulling C-notes out of her dainties.

good ole USA

captkw - 8-14-2014 at 08:51 PM

Keep waving that flag !! ed. is going to the sewer..heath care is a BAD joke...and your RIGHTS are going out the window........"Land of the FEE" Wake up America !! ....PS..keep watching that TV !!!!

gnukid - 8-14-2014 at 09:02 PM

She can get the money back with evidence of income.

[Edited on 8-15-2014 by gnukid]

monoloco - 8-14-2014 at 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gnukid
She can get the money back with evidence of income.

[Edited on 8-15-2014 by gnukid]
Yeah, that and about 30k for a lawyer.

wetto - 8-15-2014 at 08:33 AM

One does not have to leave the US to have cash over $30,000 seized. I know of an individual taking the train from Chicago to SF that had agents board the train for random baggage inspection. The discovered over 30k in his/her possession(luggage) and seized the cash claiming they thought it was from drug sales. They were pulled off the train, detained while they were searched further, filling out forms, taking their picture etc...missed their trip with no reimbursement.
This was all in the USA. They had to petition and prove that the $ was theirs and that it was obtained legally.
certainly not innocent till proven guilty.

dwedeking - 8-15-2014 at 08:42 AM

Why wouldn't police do this? It's no risk with all kinds of upside for them. Worst case scenario is the peasant spends a lot of money on lawyers and takes the money back.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/c...

greengoes - 8-15-2014 at 08:48 AM

Next time use a cashiers check. It may not make someone look more statuesque but it won't be seized.

rts551 - 8-15-2014 at 09:12 AM

guys, all you have to do is declare it. done it before no big deal.

You ask why Cisco, CaptK, etc.... you wanted the guvment to catch money launderers, especially mafia and drug cartel....

can't have it both ways "freedom" for some (especially me) but not for others

BajaBlanca - 8-15-2014 at 10:47 AM

Old folks sometimes do not think straight. Me included. So surprising that she did not declare. Her moola is her moola.

Hope she has kids to help her get that cash back!

[Edited on 8-15-2014 by BajaBlanca]

SFandH - 8-15-2014 at 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaBlanca
Old folks sometimes do not think straight. Me included. So surprising that she did not declare. Her moola is her moola.

Hope she has kids to help her get that cash back!

[Edited on 8-15-2014 by BajaBlanca]


From one of the links:

"Along with her daughter, Cherryn Faren, 48, she tried to take nearly $41,000 in currency."

I bet it was the daughter's idea to take the cash.............you know, just to help 78 year old Mom.

BajaBlanca - 8-15-2014 at 11:06 AM

You're probably right.

Chupacabra - 8-15-2014 at 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco

I think the point was why do we have to tell anyone what we are taking out of our country if it is legally ours?



Tax evasion, fraud, terrorist financing, money laundering, and a whole host of other criminal activities.

bajaguy - 8-15-2014 at 12:47 PM

She could think straight enough to wire some funds to herself (wonder if she filled out the required forms) and stash the remaining cash in several places



Quote:
Originally posted by BajaBlanca
Old folks sometimes do not think straight. Me included. So surprising that she did not declare. Her moola is her moola.
[Edited on 8-15-2014 by BajaBlanca]

BajaGringo - 8-15-2014 at 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Chupacabra
Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco

I think the point was why do we have to tell anyone what we are taking out of our country if it is legally ours?



Tax evasion, fraud, terrorist financing, money laundering, and a whole host of other criminal activities.



I agree there is a legal basis for it but the system is way out of whack if the same system does not easily provide a means for someone legit, who obtained the money legally, to recuperate the cash without having to hire a lawyer.

Using this logic and running with it, they could then try to make the case that cops will have the right to stop you at anytime, search you, your car, your home, garage, your business, your storage unit, your safety deposit box, etc etc and confiscate anything that you do not pre-declare to them including cash, gold, jewelry, autos, weapons, ammo, cars, boats, RV's and anything else that narcos tend to buy with their cash.

It is a slippery slope and the path is only getting steeper as we go. No partisan finger pointing here as both sides of the aisle have continued to vote to give away our constitutional rights, one after another.

This is simply government out of control and I am running out of ideas how to stop it.

More of us need to familiarize ourselves with the fourth amendment and stop this lunacy before it truly does turn into a police state...

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution


[Edited on 8-15-2014 by BajaGringo]

rts551 - 8-15-2014 at 01:34 PM

Ron, the problem is that we demand these things in one way or another.

Stop the cartels! secure the border! stop off-shore accounts and tax fraud! and on and on.

sounds good when we demand things ... but we do not like any of the solutions.
Actually, it is very easy to declare money taken out of the country. I learned the hard way but that is a different story.

one page form....easy


There is no limit on the amount of money that can be taken out of or brought into the United States. However, if a person or persons traveling together and filing a joint declaration (CBP Form 6059-B) have $10,000 or more in currency or negotiable monetary instruments, they must fill out a "Report of International Transportation of Currency and Monetary Instruments" FinCEN 105 (former CF 4790).

bufeo - 8-15-2014 at 01:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
... if a person or persons traveling together and filing a joint declaration (CBP Form 6059-B) have $10,000 or more in currency or negotiable monetary instruments, they must fill out a "Report of International Transportation of Currency and Monetary Instruments" FinCEN 105 (former CF 4790).


Isn't that $10,000.00 per individual, i.e. a couple may have $20K?

Allen R

dasubergeek - 8-15-2014 at 02:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Ron, the problem is that we demand these things in one way or another.

Stop the cartels! secure the border! stop off-shore accounts and tax fraud! and on and on.

sounds good when we demand things ... but we do not like any of the solutions.
Actually, it is very easy to declare money taken out of the country. I learned the hard way but that is a different story.

one page form....easy


There is no limit on the amount of money that can be taken out of or brought into the United States. However, if a person or persons traveling together and filing a joint declaration (CBP Form 6059-B) have $10,000 or more in currency or negotiable monetary instruments, they must fill out a "Report of International Transportation of Currency and Monetary Instruments" FinCEN 105 (former CF 4790).


And you don't think that, upon declaring that you are taking, say, $45,000 out of the country, that they'll seize it anyway and make you prove you didn't obtain it through nefarious means? It isn't as simple as showing a withdrawal from a U.S. bank, after all.

bufeo - 8-15-2014 at 02:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dasubergeek...And you don't think that, upon declaring that you are taking, say, $45,000 out of the country, that they'll seize it anyway and make you prove you didn't obtain it through nefarious means? It isn't as simple as showing a withdrawal from a U.S. bank, after all.


Yes, it is. Been there; done that. Not only was none of our money confiscated, aside from the form there were hardly any questions.

Allen R.

bajaguy - 8-15-2014 at 02:49 PM

Easy squeezy if you have documentation on origination of funds (home sales contract and bank deposit and withdrawal documents. Just declare, fill out the fed form and go

Quote:
Originally posted by bufeo
Quote:
Originally posted by dasubergeek...And you don't think that, upon declaring that you are taking, say, $45,000 out of the country, that they'll seize it anyway and make you prove you didn't obtain it through nefarious means? It isn't as simple as showing a withdrawal from a U.S. bank, after all.


Yes, it is. Been there; done that. Not only was none of our money confiscated, aside from the form there were hardly any questions.

Allen R.

rts551 - 8-15-2014 at 03:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dasubergeek
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Ron, the problem is that we demand these things in one way or another.

Stop the cartels! secure the border! stop off-shore accounts and tax fraud! and on and on.

sounds good when we demand things ... but we do not like any of the solutions.
Actually, it is very easy to declare money taken out of the country. I learned the hard way but that is a different story.

one page form....easy


There is no limit on the amount of money that can be taken out of or brought into the United States. However, if a person or persons traveling together and filing a joint declaration (CBP Form 6059-B) have $10,000 or more in currency or negotiable monetary instruments, they must fill out a "Report of International Transportation of Currency and Monetary Instruments" FinCEN 105 (former CF 4790).


And you don't think that, upon declaring that you are taking, say, $45,000 out of the country, that they'll seize it anyway and make you prove you didn't obtain it through nefarious means? It isn't as simple as showing a withdrawal from a U.S. bank, after all.


THey did not with me...nor others who have built in Mexico.

rts551 - 8-15-2014 at 03:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bufeo
Quote:
Originally posted by dasubergeek...And you don't think that, upon declaring that you are taking, say, $45,000 out of the country, that they'll seize it anyway and make you prove you didn't obtain it through nefarious means? It isn't as simple as showing a withdrawal from a U.S. bank, after all.


Yes, it is. Been there; done that. Not only was none of our money confiscated, aside from the form there were hardly any questions.

Allen R.


Yez sir....nottin to it....unless you got something to worry about. Makes you wonder about some people.

mtgoat666 - 8-15-2014 at 04:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
The FAIR Act: New bill aims to reign in policing for profit
A rare opportunity to reduce the federal government's ability to steal your stuff.

Posted on July 29, 2014 by Site Staff in Politics

Policing for profit.

One of the many abusive procedures used in modern policing is known as civil asset forfeiture. When it is applied, police officers and investigators confiscate property — cash, vehicles, equipment, bank accounts, real estate — based on the mere suspicion that it may be involved with criminal activity. The owner is robbed, for all intents and purposes, without any establishment of guilt.

The legal basis for “forfeiting” property is so loose that often a person might lose his possessions and be let go without any criminal charges. The owner is then tasked with fighting in court to get the property returned, a process that can be lengthy and cost-prohibitive. Additionally, police and district attorneys typically get to keep what they seize, and use it to redouble their forfeiture efforts.
The official DEA Asset Forfeiture Program patch.

The official DEA Asset Forfeiture Program patch.

Employment of the dubious tactic has been on the rise, primarily in the name of drug prohibition, and facilitated through the use of domestic spying. Since 2001, the total amount of property seized annually by the DEA has soared by 200 percent! NSA surveillance technology has been a boon to those in the business of plundering without due process.

Besides endlessly harassing people over victimless crimes, asset grabbers also roll up a number of people who have not even broken the law. One elderly Massachusetts couple had their family-based motel seized by the U.S. Department of Justice. Another recent example occurred when a man who had just won big at a Las Vegas casino had his cash seized during a traffic stop. None of these parties were charged with a crime, and eventually fought to get their property back in court. However, the vast majority of victims of civil asset forfeiture will never have their story told.

This week, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced S. 2644, the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act, otherwise known as the FAIR Act. Senator Paul’s office described the bill in a press release:

U.S. Senator Rand Paul

[S. 2644] would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment’s role in seizing property without due process of law. Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property.

The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property. State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General’s Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury’s General Fund.

Although civil asset forfeiture is a problem in every state, some of the abuse arises from the incentives offered for getting the federal government involved. State laws that might otherwise prevent abusive confiscations can be circumvented if the local cops invite the DEA, ATF, FBI, or similar federal agency to take over an investigation. In these “equitable sharing” situations, the feds take a cut of the loot and return the rest to the local agency — as much as 80 percent. Needless to say, the system is rife with corruption and encourages predatory policing.
The Hartford (Connecticut) Police Department proudly shows off seized and repurposed property.

The Hartford (Connecticut) Police Department proudly shows off seized and repurposed property.

The FAIR Act puts forth three core reforms to federal civil asset forfeiture practice: (1) it would eliminate most of the direct incentives driving asset forfeiture abuse by directing forfeiture proceeds to the U.S. Treasury department’s general fund, in lieu of the DOJ’s asset forfeiture fund; (2) it would prevent state and local police from evading state laws governing the availability of civil forfeiture and the distribution of forfeiture proceeds (“equitable sharing” or “adoption”); and (3) the Act would increase the Government’s burden of proof for a forfeiture, from a preponderance of the evidence standard to that of a clear and convincing evidence standard — the standard originally proposed for the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 by the late Henry Hyde.

“The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime,” Senator Paul said. “The FAIR Act will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime.”

To accompany Paul’s efforts in the Senate, U.S. Representative Tim Wahlberg (R, MI-7) introduced H.R. 5212; slightly weaker than the FAIR Act but still attacking the same systematic problem.
Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Nevada Sheriff's Department poses with cash confiscated during a traffic stop. The driver claimed he won the money in a Las Vegas casino; he was never charged with a crime. (Source: Facebook)

Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Nevada Sheriff’s Department poses with cash confiscated during a traffic stop. The driver claimed he won the money in a Las Vegas casino; he was never charged with a crime. (Source: Facebook)

“In a country founded on principles of due process and property rights, we should not be promoting a system where an individual’s property may be seized without a finding of guilt,” explained Rep. Walberg. “Reform to our civil asset forfeiture laws is necessary to ensure the federal government can no longer profit from the unjust seizure of property.”

Americans for Forfeiture Reform (AFR), an advocacy group that exposing forfeiture abuse and lobbies for policy change, has publicly endorsed the FAIR Act and is promoting its passage.

“The FAIR Act is a substantial reform of federal civil asset forfeiture,” AFR founder Eapen Thampy told Police State USA. “It includes three key reforms: legislative re-appropriation of forfeiture revenues, a mandate that state and local law enforcement receiving forfeiture funds obey state laws regarding the disposition of those funds, and a mandate that the government must show clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing before property is forfeited in court.”

“While these reforms will not totally end abuses of the system,” Thampy explained, “they will substantially level the legal playing field for victims of forfeiture and re-empower voters by reinstituting the legislative power of the purse over law enforcement. Additionally, drug policy and criminal justice reform advocates will find that asset forfeiture’s role as a key economic engine of drug prohibition and police militarization will be substantially constrained if FAIR is passed.”

I am unable to post photos.

There are some excellent exploratory photos associated with this article at:

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/the-fair-act/


the problem is that there are more bad cops than good cops, and the proportion of bad cops is growing every day.
after the police state becomes severe, citizens militias will have to overthrow the abusive cops and reform police departments using psych tests to weed out the bad apple applicants.

IN THE MEAN TIME, TRUST NO COP!

Tioloco - 8-15-2014 at 06:52 PM

"Innocent until proven guilty"
Better to have 10 guilty people walk free than 1 innocent wrongly convicted.
Also remember that CBP has a very bad record of corruption.... not necessarily a good idea to tell them much.
I guess it is better to give up all freedoms so we have a perception of more "security".

SAD story. :(

bufeo - 8-15-2014 at 07:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco...The one I posted above was not about leaving the country. It was seized in country with no charges filed.


Well, I'm confused. When you write "The one" are we supposed to look at the OP? There you clearly wrote,

" On April 2, 2014, Ms. Faren tried to board Delta Air Lines Flight 275 to the Philippines. At Detroit Metropolitan Airport, she was stopped at a federal checkpoint by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and scrutinized about what she, as an American citizen, was carrying out of the country."

I believe the Philippines are still considered "out of the country", so she must have been going through U.S. Customs. Maybe I'm wrong.

Allen R.

Chupacabra - 8-15-2014 at 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaGringo

I agree there is a legal basis for it but the system is way out of whack if the same system does not easily provide a means for someone legit, who obtained the money legally, to recuperate the cash without having to hire a lawyer.



There is a legal basis from expatriation of US currency. She chose to ignore it and instead try and smuggle the cash out in her panties.

Most likely she was trying to evade taxes on profits from her home sale.

Tioloco - 8-15-2014 at 10:50 PM

Avoid taxes on her home sale? That's a stretch.....

Tioloco - 8-15-2014 at 10:53 PM

Many Seem to be missing the point.... Her money to do with what she wants... PERIOD. Gubment doesn't need to know chit. Her biz ness.

rts551 - 8-16-2014 at 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tioloco
Many Seem to be missing the point.... Her money to do with what she wants... PERIOD. Gubment doesn't need to know chit. Her biz ness.


A land without laws?

Tioloco - 8-16-2014 at 01:40 PM

Rts-
I didn't say, nor do I believe we should have no laws.
Having said that, I do not believe you can ever legislate your way to nirvana. We are losing our freedoms that make the U.S. What it once was.
Open your eyes,America...

Every freedom given up has a big consequence.

amigobaja - 8-16-2014 at 01:41 PM

Investors business daily this week had an article about asset forfeiture. They had many recent events listed that's happening all across the so called land of the free. Young couple in Texas pulled over because they fit the look of drug traffickers. Carrying 8000.00 cash. No drugs,no drug history,no criminal record two kids in the car. Ended up walking away from the money that they were going to use to buy a car with. could not afford the legal battle. Older retired couple in Philadelphia grandson sold a small amount of weed to a police informant. Police confiscated the couples house and sold it at auction for what the police claimed to be drug dealing on the property. No charges ever filed against grandson. A motel owner on record helped the police over 15 times arrest people dealing drugs from the hotel. Police decided to many drug problems so they did an asset forfeiture on the motel owners. When idiots tell me they would never invest in Mexico because of the Govt seizing their property I just chuckle and let them stay ignorant. I fear the U.s.govt. way more then Mexican govt. I personally have been forced four different times to sell portions of properties I did not want to sell nor receive anywhere near the value to me of the properties by the State of Calif. One reason amongst many that I moved out of that state and considering the U.S completely.

Tioloco - 8-16-2014 at 01:48 PM

Well said, amigo. California has made doing business in California impractical. Unfortunately, it seems contagious.

rts551 - 8-16-2014 at 02:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tioloco
Rts-
I didn't say, nor do I believe we should have no laws.
Having said that, I do not believe you can ever legislate your way to nirvana. We are losing our freedoms that make the U.S. What it once was.
Open your eyes,America...

Every freedom given up has a big consequence.


I only reply, because like a lot of others, you bemoan the "police state", repressive government, or what ever. Nothing to replace it with....in other words (and I am just guessing here) You don't want drug cartels in our country but you don't like the laws that are meant to restrict their activities without an alternative solution.

Thank goodness you have the freedom to express the opinion and vote for those that might implement your desires. That is the true freedom of our country.

Tioloco - 8-16-2014 at 02:51 PM

Rts-

I am not bemoaning anything.
I am realistic that a nanny state will leave your grandchildren with a lot less opportunity available than what our parents had. I am all for personal responsibility.
Unfortunately, I think I will have to tell you in the future, "I told ya so".....
But by then, it will probably be too late.

Tioloco - 8-16-2014 at 03:19 PM

It appears as though more and more people are starting to realize something has to be done to correct this path. I sure hope so. And this has nothing to do with either political party. This is about civil liberty and personal responsibility.

rts551 - 8-16-2014 at 03:25 PM

Tio, I remember people saying the exact same thing 50 years ago. The less opportunity part did come about...about 10 years ago. I worry too...worry that emotion will take precedent over common sense.

Hopefully you and I can look back at this in 20 years.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tioloco
Rts-

I am not bemoaning anything.
I am realistic that a nanny state will leave your grandchildren with a lot less opportunity available than what our parents had. I am all for personal responsibility.
Unfortunately, I think I will have to tell you in the future, "I told ya so".....
But by then, it will probably be too late.

rts551 - 8-16-2014 at 03:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Tioloco
Rts-
I didn't say, nor do I believe we should have no laws.
Having said that, I do not believe you can ever legislate your way to nirvana. We are losing our freedoms that make the U.S. What it once was.
Open your eyes,America...

Every freedom given up has a big consequence.


I only reply, because like a lot of others, you bemoan the "police state", repressive government, or what ever. Nothing to replace it with....in other words (and I am just guessing here) You don't want drug cartels in our country but you don't like the laws that are meant to restrict their activities without an alternative solution.

Thank goodness you have the freedom to express the opinion and vote for those that might implement your desires. That is the true freedom of our country.


Hey RTs. I'm bemoaning all of the .... you are putting out.

Too many folks are getting good information from this thread and I don't want to see it taken off or sent to OT because of what I would like to say to you.

So, why don't we meet over on off-track and continue our conversation without garbaging up this important topic.

Toodles....


The cesspool? No thanks. Nothing any good ever comes out of there and I can' stand the smell.

Yes they are getting good info relevant to the price we are paying to try and secure the border. A baja topic.

danaeb - 8-16-2014 at 04:59 PM

For those of you who feel that your freedoms and liberties have been take away, what specific freedoms have you, personally lost, and when did you lose them?

chuckie - 8-16-2014 at 06:33 PM

How about some specifics on this? Where when and how was your right to travel impinged? Sounds like another generic cop out to me....

BajaGringo - 8-16-2014 at 08:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by danaeb
For those of you who feel that your freedoms and liberties have been take away, what specific freedoms have you, personally lost, and when did you lose them?


Here's a good start...

Americans Have Lost VIRTUALLY ALL of Our Constitutional Rights

There is a lot more but at least read this page and its links before simply dismissing this out of hand and then we can have a more in depth discussion...


[Edited on 8-17-2014 by BajaGringo]

SFandH - 8-16-2014 at 09:49 PM

"New technologies are radically advancing our freedoms but they are also enabling unparalleled invasions of privacy."

https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy

Intrusion into our private lives via digital technologies is a huge mainstream issue these days.

singleshot - 8-17-2014 at 04:00 PM

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

durrelllrobert - 8-17-2014 at 04:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tioloco
Rts-

I am not bemoaning anything.
I am realistic that a nanny state will leave your grandchildren with a lot less opportunity available than what our parents had. I am all for personal responsibility.
Unfortunately, ] think I will have to tell you in the future, "I told ya so".....
But by then, it will probably be too late.


[URL=http://s252.photobucket.com/user/durrellrobert/media/fotuneteller_zpsa037e646.png.html][/URL

Tioloco - 8-17-2014 at 04:30 PM

Durrell-
Check that. I know I will have to say "I told you so!"
Wake up, please.
Thank u

Chupacabra - 8-17-2014 at 04:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco

San Onofre checkpoint on Hwy 5. That was the first one I ever saw internally (that wasn't a DUI set up or like that).

(mid-late 70's) I was driving a Lincoln Town Car (large car) and we were stopped at San Onofre, pulled aside and "papers please".



Wow. You claim to have lost ALL your Constitutional rights and the only example you can come up with is some half-baked story about being asked for "papers" at San Onofre in the 1970's? I've crossed that immigration checkpoint literally hundreds of times and never heard of such a thing from anyone except you. Odd...

In truth, most Libertopians are people with victim mentalities. They like to pretend they are victimized by the government and scour the Internet for stories that feed their victim mentality. When asked for specifics of how they are victimized, they almost always fall back on silly examples such as this.

Oh, no!!!

bajaguy - 8-18-2014 at 07:20 PM

http://www.cbs8.com/story/26310845/agents-seize-more-than-60...

SAN CLEMENTE (CBS 8) – Border Patrol agents have seized more than $600,000 worth of drugs at the San Clemente checkpoint over the last week.

Last Thursday, agents inspecting a dodge ram truck reported finding 16 plastic bundles hidden underneath the tailgate. Four were filled with methamphetamine, and the other 12 tested positive for cocaine. The drugs were worth more than $440,000

The next day, agents inspecting a Chevrolet Malibu found several bundles of marijuana in the car's trunk, front and rear bumpers and under a blanket in the backseat. The marijuana had an estimated street value of $216,000.

BornFisher - 8-18-2014 at 08:31 PM

Hey Cisco--- I`m up for that road trip. We can go in my beater van, all I ask is I do the driving and talking if and when we are contacted by the BP. I know some cool places along that route, and love getting out there!! And you don`t need to sponsor me!!

Kgryfon - 8-18-2014 at 10:14 PM

If you think this only happens to people who are involved in criminal activity, you might want to read this 2010 study:

Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture is the most comprehensive national study to examine the use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture and the first study to grade the civil forfeiture laws of all 50 states and the federal government.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30294020/Policing-For-Profit-The-A...

SFandH - 8-19-2014 at 08:47 AM

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/04/ec...

emphasis added

"This is a procedure known as "civil-asset forfeiture". Unlike criminal forfeiture, in which prosecutors seize the proceeds of criminal activity as punishment for a crime, civil-asset forfeiture does not require a conviction or even a criminal charge: in fact, a study by Henry Hyde, a Republican former congressman, and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, found that 80% of people whose property was seized by the federal government were never charged with a crime."

"Though civil-asset forfeiture has a long history, it took off in America following passage of some amendments to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act in 1984 that allowed police to keep and spend forfeiture proceeds. This gave law-enforcement agencies a direct financial incentive to take more stuff, and led to what the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian law firm, calls "policing for profit". In 1986 the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund took in $93.7m; by September 2013 the Fund held more than $2 billion in net assets."

[Edited on 8-19-2014 by SFandH]