Couple has $107k stolen by cops.

[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.

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

'what lie'- don't you mean 'which lies"?

1. Yep, Dumbfuck. They showed the evidence to a judge
2. Yep, Dumbfuck. They showed the evidence to a judge.
3. Yes, they proved it to the judge. Retard.
4. I posted a link that explained why since it wasn't provided. The cops, federal prosecutors and judge determined it was drug money and I can see why. You can't but that changes nothing.

Starting with my favorite whopper- #4- and here is the article you claimed that 'judged determined it was drug money'- but of course your article says no such thing- you pulled that out of your ass

What evidence? Again you are just pulling this all out of your ass- like you said that they showed 'the evidence' to the judge- like your lie about 'they proved it to the judge'- all pulled out of your ass.

ICEWEASEL:
OK, I did a little snooping since agenda driven people couldn't give a fuck 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.

 

[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"....

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?

Government seizes $107,000 Ice claps for government
Government seizes 100 cows Ice complains about "Big Government"

 

[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?

Government seizes $107,000 Ice claps for government
Government seizes 100 cows Ice complains about "Big Government"

Syriusly tries to use brain. Fails again.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

'what lie'- don't you mean 'which lies"?

1. Yep, Dumbfuck. They showed the evidence to a judge
2. Yep, Dumbfuck. They showed the evidence to a judge.
3. Yes, they proved it to the judge. Retard.
4. I posted a link that explained why since it wasn't provided. The cops, federal prosecutors and judge determined it was drug money and I can see why. You can't but that changes nothing.

Starting with my favorite whopper- #4- and here is the article you claimed that 'judged determined it was drug money'- but of course your article says no such thing- you pulled that out of your ass

What evidence? Again you are just pulling this all out of your ass- like you said that they showed 'the evidence' to the judge- like your lie about 'they proved it to the judge'- all pulled out of your ass.

ICEWEASEL:
OK, I did a little snooping since agenda driven people couldn't give a fuck 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 had a trial where the feds brought all that up. It's a mystery to you as to why, we get it. Change your tampon and lie down for a while.

 

[EverCurious]

Terrorism is legal where you are?

I'm in the USA, where are you?

18 USC 2332F - 18 U.S. Code § 2332f - Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities

a) Offenses.—

(1)In general.—Whoever unlawfully delivers, places, discharges, or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into, or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility—

(A)
with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or

(B)
with the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility, or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss,

shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).​

(2)Attempts and conspiracies.—
Whoever attempts or conspires to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
​

In fact, in a lot of cases it's not even just the "terrorist" themselves, but /anyone/ who might have known about it OR suspected it:

18 USC 2339 - 18 U.S. Code § 2339 - Harboring or concealing terrorists

(a) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons), section 229 (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), paragraph (2) or (3) of section 844(f) (relating to arson and bombing of government property risking or causing injury or death), section 1366(a) (relating to the destruction of an energy facility), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2332a (relating to weapons of mass destruction), or section 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries) of this title, section 236(a) (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284(a)), or section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 49, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b)
A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.​

Anyone who "contributed" to it in some way:

18 USC 2339A - 18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists

(a)Offense.—
Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or (i), 930(c), 956, 1091, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, 2340A, or 2442 of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.
(b)Definitions.—As used in this section—

(1)
the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
(2)
the term “training” means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and
(3)
the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.​

and 18 USC 2339B - 18 U.S. Code § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

(a) Prohibited Activities.— ​

(1)Unlawful conduct.—
Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).​

(2)Financial institutions.—Except as authorized by the Secretary, any financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of, or control over, any funds in which a foreign terrorist organization, or its agent, has an interest, shall—

(A)
retain possession of, or maintain control over, such funds; and
(B)
report to the Secretary the existence of such funds in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.​

(b)Civil Penalty.—Any financial institution that knowingly fails to comply with subsection (a)(2) shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount that is the greater of—

(A)
$50,000 per violation; or
(B)
twice the amount of which the financial institution was required under subsection (a)(2) to retain possession or control.​

(c)Injunction.—
Whenever it appears to the Secretary or the Attorney General that any person is engaged in, or is about to engage in, any act that constitutes, or would constitute, a violation of this section, the Attorney General may initiate civil action in a district court of the United States to enjoin such violation.
​

and 18 USC 2339C - 18 U.S. Code § 2339C - Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism

(a) Offenses.—

(1)In general.—Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out—

(A)
an act which constitutes an offense within the scope of a treaty specified in subsection (e)(7), as implemented by the United States, or
(B)
any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act,
shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(1).​

(2)Attempts and conspiracies.—
Whoever attempts or conspires to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(1).
​

(b)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses in subsection (a) in the following circumstances—

(1) the offense takes place in the United States and—

(A)
a perpetrator was a national of another state or a stateless person;
(B)
on board a vessel flying the flag of another state or an aircraft which is registered under the laws of another state at the time the offense is committed;
(C)
on board an aircraft which is operated by the government of another state;
(D)
a perpetrator is found outside the United States;
(E) was directed toward or resulted in the carrying out of a predicate act against—

(i)
a national of another state; or
(ii)
another state or a government facility of such state, including its embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of that state;​

(F)
was directed toward or resulted in the carrying out of a predicate act committed in an attempt to compel another state or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act; or
(G) was directed toward or resulted in the carrying out of a predicate act—

(i)
outside the United States; or
(ii)
within the United States, and either the offense or the predicate act was conducted in, or the results thereof affected, interstate or foreign commerce;​

(2) the offense takes place outside the United States and—

(A)
a perpetrator is a national of the United States or is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States;
(B)
a perpetrator is found in the United States; or
(C) was directed toward or resulted in the carrying out of a predicate act against—

(i)
any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, including an embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of the United States;
(ii)
any person or property within the United States;
(iii)
any national of the United States or the property of such national; or
(iv)
any property of any legal entity organized under the laws of the United States, including any of its States, districts, commonwealths, territories, or possessions;​

(3)
the offense is committed on board a vessel flying the flag of the United States or an aircraft which is registered under the laws of the United States at the time the offense is committed;
(4)
the offense is committed on board an aircraft which is operated by the United States; or
(5)
the offense was directed toward or resulted in the carrying out of a predicate act committed in an attempt to compel the United States to do or abstain from doing any act.
​

(c)Concealment.—Whoever—

(1)

(A)
is in the United States; or
(B)
is outside the United States and is a national of the United States or a legal entity organized under the laws of the United States (including any of its States, districts, commonwealths, territories, or possessions); and​

(2) knowingly conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of any material support or resources, or any funds or proceeds of such funds—

(A)
knowing or intending that the support or resources are to be provided, or knowing that the support or resources were provided, in violation of section 2339B of this title; or
(B)
knowing or intending that any such funds are to be provided or collected, or knowing that the funds were provided or collected, in violation of subsection (a),
shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(2).​

 

[Iceweasel]

Terrorism is legal where you are?

I'm in the USA, where are you?

18 USC 2332F - 18 U.S. Code § 2332f - Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities

a) Offenses.—

Jesus. I think we all know it isn't legal! The point is that the OP is misleading, no cops can't and don't just take your shit for no good reason. If you don't like the law get it changed, bitching about it here won't do anything.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

This couple get pulled over for speeding. The cops find over $107k in a suitcase and her purse. The cops seize the money. No drugs are found and no charges are ever made. But the couple loses the money?

WTH?? How do we allow this? This is pure theft.

Cops Seized Over $107,000 From Couple, Didn’t Charge Them With a Crime - Institute for Justice

You can lay the blame of what happened on the negro. That's right, the negro. If it wasn't for their rampant criminal drug prone lives that cops experience on a daily basis somewhere in the United States, this wouldn't be taking place. Blacks and all their generational drug dealings have made cops paranoid. You see, when a White person is seen with a lot of cash on him or her, they are automatically assumed they are connected to drugs all in part because the negro always is attempting to sell it to them to get money, and the white women. Again, this is all to blame on the feral animal known as the negro. Confiscate the cash, put the drug dealing negro out of business where whites wont be forced to carry large amounts of cash in transport.

 

[reconmark]

This couple get pulled over for speeding. The cops find over $107k in a suitcase and her purse. The cops seize the money. No drugs are found and no charges are ever made. But the couple loses the money?

WTH?? How do we allow this? This is pure theft.

Cops Seized Over $107,000 From Couple, Didn’t Charge Them With a Crime - Institute for Justice

You can lay the blame of what happened on the negro. That's right, the negro. If it wasn't for their rampant criminal drug prone lives that cops experience on a daily basis somewhere in the United States, this wouldn't be taking place. Blacks and all their generational drug dealings have made cops paranoid. You see, when a White person is seen with a lot of cash on him or her, they are automatically assumed they are connected to drugs all in part because the negro always is attempting to sell it to them to get money, and the white women. Again, this is all to blame on the feral animal known as the negro. Confiscate the cash, put the drug dealing negro out of business where whites wont be forced to carry large amounts of cash in transport.

Please continue to be the spokesthing for white supremacists everywhere...it makes things so much simpler.

 

[EverCurious]

Yeah... might want to look into the history of cocaine, white folks were /all/ over that stuff heh