United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Cops Now Using a New Device Allowing them to Steal Cash From Innocent Citizens Like an ATM
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06 ... steal-money-from-citizens.html
Published: Jun 8, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-06-09 06:15:09 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5606
Comments: 36
As if civil asset forfeiture, where police can seize your property without having to prove you actually committed a crime, wasn’t contentious enough already, a new device allows the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to steal money directly from your bank account — on the spot. And it’s already in use. The Electronic Recovery and Access to Data Machine, known by the acronym ERAD, can scan your bank account and prepaid cards, giving OHP instant access to the balance — and the funds — if a trooper believes the money is tied to a crime. OHP rolled out 16 ERAD devices in May, and unsurprisingly, has already employed the technology. You don’t even have to be charged with a crime to be a victim of these badge-wearing armed robbers — which makes OHP’s new ERAD device an astonishing prospect. “We’re gonna look for different factors in the way that you’re acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent told local News 9. “We’re gonna look for if there’s a difference in your story. If there’s some way that we can prove that you’re falsifying information to us about your business.” What Vincent seems to be saying is OHP will try its damnedest to find a reason to rob you at gunpoint. “If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we’ve done that in the past,” Vincent added. This reasoning turns the very concept of innocent until proven guilty on its head. And State Sen. Kyle Loveless said cases where police abused this new system have already come to light, including single mothers, a cancer survivor who had their medication seized, a Christian band, and a number of other completely innocent people. “We’ve seen where the money goes and how it’s misspent,” Loveless said. In fact, this is intensified policing for profit. News 9 obtained a copy of the contract between the state and ERAD Group, Inc., which shows Oklahoma paying “$5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes.” But law enforcement obstinately claims this isn’t about the money. “I know a lot of people are just going to focus on the seizing money,” Vincent stated the obvious. “That’s a small thing that’s happening now. The largest part that we have found … the biggest benefit has been the identity theft,” he added without further explanation. Controversy over civil asset forfeiture (CAF) surrounds the fact law enforcement is under no obligation to prove the property it seizes could in any way be tied to criminal activity. Once police have your property, most departments are free to essentially divvy it up amongst themselves. Countless cases dot headlines around the country evidence thousands of innocent people as victims of this financial terrorism perpetrated by the government. Police even managed to ‘seize’ $53,000 from a Christian band, an orphanage, and a church. Earlier this year, one of the creators of CAF tellingly called for the program to be abolished — and though it was briefly suspended, the Dept. of Justice allowed CAF to resume in April. Sen. Loveless feels a conviction should be necessary for police to seize money using ERAD, and plans to introduce legislation. “If I had to err on the side of one versus the other, I would err on the side of the Constitution,” he explained. “And I think that’s what we need to do.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Getting property back from the police.
And just how is a site in the UK relevant to the theft of money from innocent citizens in the United States by badged thieves who now have the power to get into your bank account and steal THAT money as well? Sod off you bloody wanker. We have a national corrupt government which trickles down to local government. Is the governor involved in such things? Certainly.
Psalm 37
So, the government *IS* paying down the federal debt. Cool!
Stupid question. Let me try to educate you since you asked it. The Common Law of England is in general the basis of the law of all the states of the American Union except Louisiana, whose system is based upon the Civil or Roman Law. Ergo, the procedure is applicable in the U.S. As you continue through life with your ignorance, just remember that I will be here to try again to help you.
You're full of shit. In the UK asset forfeiture proceedings are initiated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These fall into various types. Firstly there are confiscation proceedings. A confiscation order is a court order made in the Crown Court requiring a convicted defendant to pay a specified amount of money to the state by a specified date. Secondly, there are cash forfeiture proceedings, which take place (in England and Wales) in the Magistrates Court with a right of appeal to the Crown Court, having been brought by either the police or Customs. Thirdly, there are civil recovery proceedings that are brought by the National Crime Agency "NCA". Then the procedures in the U.S. are better ... good.
Only in your delusional head. Non in my head. I am not the one capturing the ill-gotten money from drug dealers, selling drugs that are killing people.
Tell it to these people. How police took $53,000 from a Christian band, an orphanage and a church DEA to traveler: Thanks, I’ll take that cash It happened, Rivers said, to him on April 15 as he was traveling on Amtrak from Dearborn, Mich., near his hometown of Romulus, Mich., to Los Angeles to fulfill his dream of making a music video. Rivers, in an email, said he had saved his money for years, and his mother and other relatives scraped together the rest of the $16,000. Rivers said he carried his savings in cash because he has had problems in the past with taking out large sums of money from out-of-state banks. A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why. When Rivers replied that he was headed to LA to make a music video, the agent asked to search his bags. Rivers complied. Rivers was the only passenger singled out for a search by DEA agents – and the only black person on his portion of the train, Pancer said. In one of the bags, the agent found the cash, still in the Michigan bank envelope. “I even allowed him to call my mother, a military veteran and (hospital) coordinator, to corroborate my story,” Rivers said. “Even with all of this, the officers decided to take my money because he stated that he believed that the money was involved in some type of narcotic activity.” Cops Use Traffic Stops To Seize Millions From Drivers Never Charged With A Crime Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property (including cash and cars) without having to prove the owners are guilty. Last September, Tan Nguyen was pulled over for driving three miles over the speed limit, according to a suit he filed. Deputy Lee Dove asked to search the car but Nguyen said he declined. Dove claimed he smelled marijuana but couldn’t find any drugs. The deputy then searched the car and found a briefcase containing $50,000 in cash and cashier’s checks, which he promptly seized. According to the Associated Press, Nguyen said he won that cash at a casino. Nguyen was not arrested or charged with a crime—not even a traffic citation. In the suit, Dove threatened to seize and tow Nguyen’s car unless he “got in his car and drove off and forgot this ever happened.” That would have left Nguyen stranded in the Nevada desert. Almost three months later, Ken Smith was also pulled over for speeding. During the stop, Deputy Dove performed a warrant check and found a warrant for a Ken Smith. On that basis, Dove detained Smith. But according to a lawsuit filed by Smith, the Ken Smith on the warrant had a different birthday and was black. The pulled-over Smith was white. As the lawsuit puts it, Smith “should have been cited for speeding and let go, if there was probable cause for speeding violations.” Instead, Smith was “unarrested” and allowed to leave with his car if he signed a waiver to surrender $13,800 in cash he had in the vehicle. The Humboldt County Sheriff’s office also seized a .40 caliber Ruger handgun from Smith, though Smith claimed he did not waive his right to that firearm. Iowa Troopers Steal $100,000 in Poker Winnings From Two Players Driving Through the State If one captures money from pretty much anyone one damn well pleases, some of the captured money is bound to be from drug dealers ... doesn't make it an acceptable policy. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Ergo, the procedure is applicable in the U.S. That IS hogwash, Gatlin. While basic tenants of US law do have UK origins going back hundreds of years (including the Magna Carta), civil asset forfeiture in the USA is only a few years old and the procedures between recovering property in the US and the UK are completely unrelated. The article here is talking about money, and here's what your site says about recovering money: Big help that is. Now, banks already have regulations in place about KYC and reporting transactions that either appear suspicious or are > $10,000, and otherwise look out for money laundering. It would seem the police feel the bank's safeguards are not adequate and are now doing spot checks of people's personal banking finances just because they get stopped for failing to signal a lane change. This is insane. This is government sanctioned robbery and is completely indefensible. Period. No one advocate of civil liberties ever claimed that the police can capture all bad guys all the time. It used to be said that it is better for 10 guilty people to go free rather that imprison one innocent person. But now it seems the police thinking is that it's better to take property from 10 innocent people than allow one guilty person to keep illicit gains. That is not an America that is worth saving.
How police took $53,000 from a Christian band, an orphanage and a church DEA to traveler: Thanks, I’ll take that cash I will tell them this: This has to be easy to do. Although legal to do so, it is stupid to carry $28,500 in cash in a vehicle for many reasons.
Turning the presumption of innocence on its head. Of what relevance is the stupidity, given the legality? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Of what relevance is the stupidity, given the legality? Relevance. They were stupid to carry $28,500 in cash and the cops followed the legal requirements of the law.
Turning the presumption of innocence on its head. It does. Laws needs to be changed.
Laws needs to be changed. I agree 110%. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. To get seized assets back, owners are often required to definitively prove that their property is not connected to a crime. They have to be charged first with a crime. Guzman did not need a lawyer to do this. Really?" Sounds like one of those series from "Columbo" series where the detective gets the suspect to talk first before consulting with a lawyer.
Requiring people to prove a negative is an unreasonable legal burden, and by it's nature is NOT easy to do. I can't believe you actually cite this case as proof the system works. They got the money back *3 months* later? How would you like your bank account seized for *only* 3 months? How would you like to deal with the legal problems in a faraway state for that length of time, in addition to having your whole trip interrupted? Pull-eeze! US Cash has printed on each bill, "this note is legal tender...". If it's legal tender, why is carrying it in any quantity presumed to be illegal? And if it's stupid to carry that amount in a vehicle, would you suggest they get it from point A to point B by horseback, donkey or some other means of transport?
And what amount of cash does the law state is the threshold for seizure?
I'm glad you agree with this, at least.
Really? From your posts here it would appear that the only changes you'd make would be to make it easier for the cops to steal cash.
No, they do NOT. Not the way the laws are written now.
Yes, really. Well, judging by appearance is your inherent human instinct I suppose. Phaedrus, a Roman poet, said "Things are not always as they seem; the first appearance deceives many.” This day and time judging by appearance is seen as stereotyping. Some folks see their perceptions as irrefutable fact and fail to understand that everything they see is colored by their perceptions … while in reality they may be the very opposite of what you perceive them to be.
I suggest they get a certified check when using any means of transport. I do suggest that horseback or some other means of transport are appropriate in some cases. The “other means of transport” works well for the Amish: Horseback works well too. Arizona has the only pony express that still delivers 20,000 first-class letter mail for the U.S. Postal Service 200 miles from Holbrook, Arizona, to Scottsdale, Arizona. Recent picture:
They got the money back *3 months* later? Everything is relative … 3months is easier that 3 years. It’s never going to happen to me. Your questions are purely hypothetical.
And what amount of cash does the law state is the threshold for seizure? The fed and each state has its own law. Do your own research, if you really need to know.
I'm glad you agree with this, at least. I always have. Good laws must be clear and unambiguous.
Gatlin, FireIsland Not the way the laws are written now. Those aren't "laws", but illegal legislation. They're missing due process. I suggest they get a certified check when using any means of transport. Great idea. So if I get $28,500 cash in my house, all I have to do is call the bank and tell them to cut me a certified check, because I have that much cash to cover it. Of course, because I'm smart like you, I don't take the cash to the bank in my car. I instead hide the cash in my mattress, and then go to the bank to pick up the check. I do this because... So I leave it at home, confident that the bank tellers will admire my smarts as they hand me a certified check for $28,500. Is that how it works?
Guess again. There is no threshold amount. It's up to the discretion of the cop. It's all fuzzy, so to speak. You want laws to be "clear and unambiguous", why not start there?
And what amount of cash does the law state is the threshold for seizure? The fed and each state has its own law. Guess again. Okay, next guess: The fed and each state does not have its own law. There is one central law that the fed and each state complies with and conforms to. There, I got it right this time ... or did I?
You want laws to be "clear and unambiguous", why not start there? You betcha ... why not ... I'm with you.
Not the way you lay it out. You lay it out for me how you would work it. Tell me how you would conduct two business transactions where have a large amount of money in cash (let’s use $100 thousand to define a large amount) and you are going to drive through 5 states to negotiate a land purchase with an intermediate stop in the middle to purchase a mobile home.
Only one transaction for a lot of money. Remember this? I'm getting that "I'm wasting my time" feeling discussing this with you.
It is stupid to talk about that on the phone or in email. This is how police knows where the cash is. The pastor of the church should have picked couple trusted members of the congregation in secret and neither of them should have allow a third party about time and car used for the transportation. Of course it had to be documented in advance in notarized papers to be hidden in triplicate (without specifying names and way of transport).
#2. To: Gatlin (#1)
(Edited)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
#5. To: Deckard (#2)
And just how is a site in the UK relevant to the theft of money from innocent citizens in the United States by badged thieves who now have the power to get into your bank account and steal THAT money as well?
#6. To: Gatlin (#5)
(Edited)
Ergo, the procedure is applicable in the U.S.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#7. To: Deckard (#6)
#8. To: Gatlin (#7)
Then the procedures in the U.S. are better
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#9. To: Deckard (#8)
#10. To: Gatlin (#9)
I am not the one capturing the ill-gotten money from drug dealers, selling drugs that are killing people.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#11. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#9)
I am not the one capturing the ill-gotten money from drug dealers, selling drugs that are killing people.
#12. To: Gatlin (#5)
The Common Law of England is in general the basis of the law of all the states of the American Union except Louisiana, whose system is based upon the Civil or Roman Law.
If you had money or cash seized, the rules and regulations are incredibly complicated, and you are probably best speaking to a solicitor about what to do.
#13. To: Deckard (#10)
(Edited)
Tell it to these people.
To get seized assets back, owners are often required to definitively prove that their property is not connected to a crime.
In late 2011, Guzman was driving with his brother-in-law on a Virginia highway when a state trooper sped up beside their vehicle, looked at the two men and pulled them over. As the Washington Post reported last year, the trooper was a top member of a law enforcement network that teaches officers to find assets to seize. He claimed they were speeding and following another vehicle too closely, but never issued a citation, instead getting the two church leaders to consent to a search of their car. Inside, the trooper found $28,500 in cash. Guzman said the money had been donated by parishioners and presented documents to support his claim. He told the officer they were taking the cash to Atlanta to negotiate the purchase of a plot of land in El Salvador to build a new church. Other portions of the cash, Guzman said, were set aside to buy a trailer for a new church congregation in North Carolina and for the cost of the road trip. The trooper didn’t accept their explanation, and ordered them to drive to the police station to turn over the money. Guzman and his brother-in-law left with only a receipt. Virginia State Police had no proof that the funds were related to a crime, but suspected they were part of a cash-smuggling operation. To get the money back, Guzman would have to prove they weren’t. Luckily, he was able to find a lawyer to take his case pro bono. After Guzman officially provided documentation verifying the source of the cash, the government returned the funds three months later.
Guzman did not need a lawyer to do this.
#14. To: Gatlin (#13)
owners are often required to definitively prove that their property is not connected to a crime.
Although legal to do so, it is stupid to carry $28,500 in cash in a vehicle for many reasons.
#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
#16. To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
owners are often required to definitively prove that their property is not connected to a crime.
#17. To: Gatlin (#16)
It does.
#18. To: Gatlin (#13)
#19. To: Gatlin (#13)
To get seized assets back, owners are often required to definitively prove that their property is not connected to a crime.
This has to be easy to do.
In late 2011, Guzman was driving with his brother-in-law on a Virginia ...
...the government returned the funds three months later.
Although legal to do so, it is stupid to carry $28,500 in cash in a vehicle for many reasons.
#20. To: Gatlin (#15)
and the cops followed the legal requirements of the law.
#21. To: Gatlin (#16)
Laws needs to be changed.
#22. To: Gatlin (#16)
Laws needs to be changed.
#23. To: goldilucky (#18)
They have to be charged first with a crime.
#24. To: Orwellian Nightmare (#22)
Really? From your posts here it would appear
#25. To: Pinguinite (#19)
And if it's stupid to carry that amount in a vehicle, would you suggest they get it from point A to point B by horseback, donkey or some other means of transport?
And if it's stupid to carry that amount in a vehicle, would you suggest they get it from point A to point B by horseback, donkey or some other means of transport?
#26. To: Pinguinite (#19)
This has to be easy to do.
How would you like your bank account seized for *only* 3 months? How would you like to deal with the legal problems in a faraway state for that length of time, in addition to having your whole trip interrupted? Pull-eeze!
#27. To: Pinguinite (#20)
and the cops followed the legal requirements of the law.
#28. To: Pinguinite (#21)
Laws needs to be changed.
#29. To: Gatlin, Boss Hogg, GrandIsland, Roscoe P Coltrane, Fred Mertz, sneakypete, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#23)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#30. To: Gatlin (#25)
"it is stupid to carry $28,500 in cash in a vehicle for many reasons."
#31. To: Gatlin (#27)
And what amount of cash does the law state is the threshold for seizure?
The fed and each state has its own law.
#32. To: Pinguinite (#31)
#33. To: Pinguinite (#31)
There is no threshold amount. It's up to the discretion of the cop. It's all fuzzy, so to speak.
#34. To: Pinguinite (#30)
Is that how it works?
#35. To: Gatlin (#34)
Tell me how you would conduct two business transactions where have a large amount of money in cash
Inside, the trooper found $28,500 in cash. Guzman said the money had been donated by parishioners and presented documents to support his claim.
#36. To: Gatlin (#13)
Although legal to do so, it is stupid to carry $28,500 in cash in a vehicle for many reasons.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]