Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.
They have the money so your theory needs work.No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.
It's not what you know...it's what you can prove.
They are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
In the American justice system, you are not required to prove your innocence.
Are they saying it is impossible that they possessed the money via innocent means?
If they are...prove it. If they can't, release the money.
The BURDEN is on the state.
So might makes right......Okay!They have the money so your theory needs work.No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.
It's not what you know...it's what you can prove.
They are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
In the American justice system, you are not required to prove your innocence.
Are they saying it is impossible that they possessed the money via innocent means?
If they are...prove it. If they can't, release the money.
The BURDEN is on the state.
I'm one of them. I have a bank, yes. But I keep cash on hand because I do not have a credit card. However, if I were traveling and wanted enough money to cover expenses and it was a large amount of money like they had, I would have gotten travelers checks. I wonder why they didn't do that?I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.There has to be more to the story.
I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.
But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.
There are still some people out there who don't trust banks, and keep their money in cash.
If the police want to treat having that much cash as a crime, they should ask for a law making it a crime.
They have the money so your theory needs work.No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.
It's not what you know...it's what you can prove.
They are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
In the American justice system, you are not required to prove your innocence.
Are they saying it is impossible that they possessed the money via innocent means?
If they are...prove it. If they can't, release the money.
The BURDEN is on the state.
Depends on the situation. Something some people can't grasp here. The state isn't always right or always wrong. What I said was factual, it's the law. There are reasons for it and responders keep crying about what's right. Talk to Dr. Phil already, Jesus!So might makes right......Okay!They have the money so your theory needs work.No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.
It's not what you know...it's what you can prove.
They are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
In the American justice system, you are not required to prove your innocence.
Are they saying it is impossible that they possessed the money via innocent means?
If they are...prove it. If they can't, release the money.
The BURDEN is on the state.
What the fuck does that have to do with this? If you need to trot out unrelated examples you need to rethink the issue.The police in New Orleans confiscated and seized law abiding citizens legally owned firearms...they had the guns. Does that mean they were right?
Should those gun owners have to prove where, how and from who they received those firearms in order to have them returned?
What if one of them had 100 guns?
Who needs 100 guns??? Obviously up to no good...the police should be able to keep them...right?
And there are also reasons against it. Hopefully it will be struck down by the courts in the near future because it's unconstitutional.Depends on the situation. Something some people can't grasp here. The state isn't always right or always wrong. What I said was factual, it's the law. There are reasons for it and responders keep crying about what's right. Talk to Dr. Phil already, Jesus!So might makes right......Okay!They have the money so your theory needs work.No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.
It's not what you know...it's what you can prove.
They are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
In the American justice system, you are not required to prove your innocence.
Are they saying it is impossible that they possessed the money via innocent means?
If they are...prove it. If they can't, release the money.
The BURDEN is on the state.
Ah slavery. Now there's an emotional issue. We got rid of slavery so we can get rid of any law! Arrr.And there are also reasons against it. Hopefully it will be struck down by the courts in the near future because it's unconstitutional.Depends on the situation. Something some people can't grasp here. The state isn't always right or always wrong. What I said was factual, it's the law. There are reasons for it and responders keep crying about what's right. Talk to Dr. Phil already, Jesus!So might makes right......Okay!They have the money so your theory needs work.No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.
It's not what you know...it's what you can prove.
They are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
In the American justice system, you are not required to prove your innocence.
Are they saying it is impossible that they possessed the money via innocent means?
If they are...prove it. If they can't, release the money.
The BURDEN is on the state.
Slavery was once the law. That didn't make slavery right.
I'm one of them. I have a bank, yes. But I keep cash on hand because I do not have a credit card. However, if I were traveling and wanted enough money to cover expenses and it was a large amount of money like they had, I would have gotten travelers checks. I wonder why they didn't do that?I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.There has to be more to the story.
I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.
But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.
There are still some people out there who don't trust banks, and keep their money in cash.
If the police want to treat having that much cash as a crime, they should ask for a law making it a crime.
If there is enough evidence to prove that the money came from illegal means, then charge and convict the people involved with the specific crime that they committed and then take the money. If there is not enough evidence to convict, then leave the people and their property alone.Ah slavery. Now there's an emotional issue. We got rid of slavery so we can get rid of any law! Arrr.And there are also reasons against it. Hopefully it will be struck down by the courts in the near future because it's unconstitutional.Depends on the situation. Something some people can't grasp here. The state isn't always right or always wrong. What I said was factual, it's the law. There are reasons for it and responders keep crying about what's right. Talk to Dr. Phil already, Jesus!So might makes right......Okay!They have the money so your theory needs work.It's not what you know...it's what you can prove.
They are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
In the American justice system, you are not required to prove your innocence.
Are they saying it is impossible that they possessed the money via innocent means?
If they are...prove it. If they can't, release the money.
The BURDEN is on the state.
Slavery was once the law. That didn't make slavery right.
But what exactly is unconstitutional about taking drug dealer's money when they got it through illegal means?
How would the IRS function? Would it be OK to have millions of dollars in cash without proof of receipt because having cash is not a crime?If there is enough evidence to prove that the money came from illegal means, then charge and convict the people involved with the specific crime that they committed and then take the money. If there is not enough evidence to convict, then leave the people and their property alone.Ah slavery. Now there's an emotional issue. We got rid of slavery so we can get rid of any law! Arrr.And there are also reasons against it. Hopefully it will be struck down by the courts in the near future because it's unconstitutional.Depends on the situation. Something some people can't grasp here. The state isn't always right or always wrong. What I said was factual, it's the law. There are reasons for it and responders keep crying about what's right. Talk to Dr. Phil already, Jesus!So might makes right......Okay!They have the money so your theory needs work.
Slavery was once the law. That didn't make slavery right.
But what exactly is unconstitutional about taking drug dealer's money when they got it through illegal means?
Due process has been turned upside down. It should take due process for the government to take someone 's property, rather than due process for people to get their property back.
Deflection! But deserving of its own thread.How would the IRS function? Would it be OK to have millions of dollars in cash without proof of receipt because having cash is not a crime?If there is enough evidence to prove that the money came from illegal means, then charge and convict the people involved with the specific crime that they committed and then take the money. If there is not enough evidence to convict, then leave the people and their property alone.Ah slavery. Now there's an emotional issue. We got rid of slavery so we can get rid of any law! Arrr.And there are also reasons against it. Hopefully it will be struck down by the courts in the near future because it's unconstitutional.Depends on the situation. Something some people can't grasp here. The state isn't always right or always wrong. What I said was factual, it's the law. There are reasons for it and responders keep crying about what's right. Talk to Dr. Phil already, Jesus!So might makes right......Okay!
Slavery was once the law. That didn't make slavery right.
But what exactly is unconstitutional about taking drug dealer's money when they got it through illegal means?
Due process has been turned upside down. It should take due process for the government to take someone 's property, rather than due process for people to get their property back.
It went to court. That's considered due process of the law.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.
No need for the dramatic over reaction. Just don't drive around with 100k of cash you can't account for in a pot bag with scales in your car. If you're a drug dealer and lose the illegal money, cry me a river....If the police believe the people are drug dealers, let's just have the police lock them up until they can prove they are not drug dealers.
Due process turned upside down. I can see holding the money/property for a short period of time pending a trial; however, if there is not enough evidence for a conviction, then the people have a right to their property. The DA should have to prove that the people are drug dealers to take their property. It shouldn't be that the people have to prove that are not drug dealers to get their property back.It went to court. That's considered due process of the law.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.
