https://www.nestmann.com/carrying-cash-be-ready-to-lose-it

If you're worried, simply go to nestmann.com and he'll help you invest your money.

If you're worried, simply go to nestmann.com and he'll help you invest your money.

Maybe I should just become a cop.

Or a DA.

Romulus, Michigan’s police chief used forfeited assets to buy a $75,000 tanning salon for his wife. He spent another $40,000 on marijuana, alcohol, and prostitutes. (I guess you don't see the hypocrisy there as well as the outright theft.)

A Texas district attorney spent $267,449 in forfeited assets on travel expenses, including numerous junkets to casinos.

Another Texas district attorney treated his office and their spouses to Hawaii for a “law conference.” He paid for it with $27,000 in asset forfeiture proceeds.

The sheriff of Camden County, Georgia, used $90,000 of forfeited assets to buy a Dodge Viper for the county’s Drug Awareness and Resistance Education (DARE) program. He also paid prison inmates $35,000 to build a “very nice party house” for himself.

Feel free to get in touch at service@nestmann.com or call +1 (602) 688-7552 to learn how we can help you.

Protecting your assets (and yourself) against any threat - from the government, the IRS or a frivolous lawsuit - is something The Nestmann Group has helped more than 15,000 Americans do over the last 30 years.

That this article comes from a source which is in the business of investment is not a rebuttal of the contents of the article.

BTW - if you think the IRS or fed.gov is your "friend", you're really dumber than I thought.

"That this article comes from a source which is in the business of investment is not a rebuttal of the contents of the article."

Of course it is. They create a phony problem then offer themselves as the solution.

" Feel free to get in touch at service@nestmann.com or call +1 (602) 688-7552 to learn how we can help you. "

Gee misterwhite, is that what you do for a living?

"Gee misterwhite, is that what you do for a living?"

Uhhhh. I meant to say "they". Yeah. Learn how they can help you.

" Uhhhh. I meant to say "they"."

LOL, yeah that is what I thought. I just had to have a laugh at your expense.

Sorry!

Prosecutors neither convicted nor accused Gonzolez or any of the other owners of the seized cash of any crime. Nor did police find any drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records connected to the cash. Despite these facts, a federal appeals court upheld the confiscation of every dollar found in the vehicle.

It was a civil proceeding brought by Gonzolez as claimant of the currency. It was not a criminal proceeding brought by the government.

United States v $124,700, 05-3295 (8th Cir, 81 Aug 2006) at pp. 6-8:

The route and circumstances of Gonzolez’s travel were highly suspicious. Gonzolez had flown on a one-way ticket, which we have previously acknowledged is evidence in favor of forfeiture, see United States v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $150,660.00, 980 F.2d 1200, 1206 (8th Cir. 1992), and he gave a vague explanation, attributed to advice from an unidentified third person, about why he elected to return by car. Gonzolez purportedly carried $125,000 in cash with him on his flight, for the purpose of buying a truck that he had never seen, from a third party whom he had never met, with the help of a friend whose name he could not recall at trial. This testimony does not inspire confidence in the innocence of the conduct. When he was stopped by the Nebraska State Patrol, Gonzolez was driving a rental car that was leased in the name of another person who was not present, another circumstance that gives rise to suspicion. Then, when Gonzolez was questioned by officers, he lied about having money in the car and about the names of his friends, thus giving further reason to question the legitimacy of the currency’s presence. See $117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413 F.3d at 829. The totality of these circumstances – the large amount of concealed currency, the strange travel pattern, the inability to identify a key party in the purported innocent transaction, the unusual rental car papers, the canine alert, and the false statements to law enforcement officers – leads most naturally to the inference that Gonzolez was involved in illegal drug activity, and that the currency was substantially connected to it.

While the claimants’ explanation for these circumstances may be “plausible,” we think it is unlikely. We therefore conclude that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant currency was substantially connected to a narcotics offense. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

Proving either they should have rehearsed a better bullshit story, or they should not have gotten stoned before trial.

Gonzolez purportedly carried $125,000 in cash with him on his flight, for the purpose of buying a truck that he had never seen, from a third party whom he had never met, with the help of a friend whose name he could not recall at trial."

Really?

Below is a more extensive quote of the Opinion of the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf

United States v $124,700, 05-3295 (8th Cir, 81 Aug 2006)

- - - - - - - - - -

At trial, the government argued that the dog’s alert, along with the large amount of cash that was seized, the circumstances of Gonzolez’s travel, and Gonzolez’s initial false denials that he was carrying cash or that he had a criminal history, showed that the currency was substantially connected to a drug transaction.

The claimants, however, argued that the cash was acquired legitimately. Manuel Gomez testified that he had given Gonzolez $65,000 in cash, which was a combination of money that he had borrowed from his father-in-law and his own personal cash savings, with the expectation that Gonzolez would help him buy a refrigerated truck for the produce business. Gonzolez testified that he gave $40,000

[3]

- - - - - - - - - -

of his own money, plus $20,000 from a friend, Andres Madrigal Morgan, as an investment in Gomez’s truck. Consistent with Gonzolez’s account, Andres Madrigal Morgan testified that he contributed $20,000 in proceeds from a vehicle sale to Gonzolez’s investment in the truck.

Gonzolez testified that after he had pooled the cash from Madrigal Morgan and Gomez with his own cash, he heard from a friend in Chicago that a truck might be available there from a friend of the friend, and he set out for Chicago by plane, taking the cash with him in a small carry-on bag. Gonzolez said, however, that when he arrived in Chicago and his friend picked him up from the airport, he learned that the truck had been sold. In addition, the unidentified friend alerted Gonzolez that it was “bad” to carry more than $10,000 in cash on your person. Newly fearful of carrying his cash back to California by plane, Gonzolez testified that he decided to rent a car rather than fly, but because neither he nor his friend had a credit card, a third individual rented the car for him.

Gonzolez also testified that he hid the money in a cooler because he was afraid that he might be assaulted or have the money stolen if it was readily observable. He also explained that he was “scared” when the troopers began questioning him about whether he was carrying drugs or currency. He said that he lied about the money and about the names of other parties involved, because he believed that carrying large amounts of cash might be illegal, and he did not want to get his friends in trouble. With respect to Trooper Bigsby’s question about whether he had ever been arrested, Gonzolez testified that Bigsby asked whether he “had any crimes” or “had been a prisoner.” Gonzolez said he answered “no,” despite his arrest for driving under the influence, because he “didn’t think that that was a crime.” (Tr. at 400).

The district court concluded that the government had not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was a substantial connection between the money and a drug trafficking offense. The court noted that large sums of unexplained

[4]

- - - - - - - - - -

currency can be evidence of drug trafficking, and that in this case the money was bundled in an unusual manner. The court also concluded, however, that the claimants had given a “plausible and consistent explanation for [the money’s] origin and intended use,” (Add. at 12), and that “the bundling is consistent with an attempt to sort the currency by contributor and conceal the currency from would-be thieves,” and not just to evade law enforcement. (Id. at 13). In addition, the court observed that the government had not presented any expert testimony about “whether the manner the bundles were wrapped either increased or decreased the likelihood of the currency’s use or connection with a drug trafficking offense.” (Id.).

With respect to the canine alert, the court agreed that the alert provided some, but only slight, evidence that the money was connected to drug trafficking. The court also considered the circumstances and route of Gonzolez’s travel, and the fact that Gonzolez had lied about the names of his friends and other details, but did not believe that this evidence taken together with the other circumstances, including all the claimants’ lack of significant criminal history, established a substantial connection to drug activity. Because the court determined that the money was not subject to forfeiture, it did not reach the question whether the claimants were innocent owners.

II.

Since the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, the burden is on the government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that seized property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Forfeiture is warranted under 21 U.S.C. § 881 when the government establishes a “‘substantial connection’ between the property” and a controlled substance offense. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3). We review any predicate factual findings for clear error, but the ultimate conclusion as to whether those facts establish a “substantial connection” between seized currency and a narcotics transaction is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. See United States v. Dodge Caravan Grand SE/Sport Van, 387

[5]

- - - - - - - - - -

F.3d 758, 761 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d 496, 501 (8th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. $117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2005).

The district court’s opinion includes no finding as to the credibility of Gonzolez and the other two claimants. The court did observe that the explanations of the claimants were “plausible and consistent,” but this is different from a finding that the court actually believed the testimony. “Plausible” means “apparently acceptable or trustworthy (sometimes with the implication of mere appearance),” see Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 2238 (5th ed. 2002), and we thus read the district court’s opinion to hold that given a “plausible and consistent” explanation from the claimants on one side of the balance, the government’s countervailing proof was not strong enough to meet its burden of showing a substantial connection by a preponderance of the evidence.

On de novo review, we respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion. We believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense. Possession of a large sum of cash is “strong evidence” of a connection to drug activity, $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d at 501-02, and Gonzolez was carrying the very large sum of $124,700. The currency was concealed in aluminum foil inside a cooler, and while an innocent traveler might theoretically carry more than $100,000 in cash across country and seek to conceal funds from would-be thieves on the highway, we have adopted the common-sense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking.

[6]

- - - - - - - - - -

$117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413 F.3d at 829. The canine alert also supports the connection. Id.¹

The route and circumstances of Gonzolez’s travel were highly suspicious. Gonzolez had flown on a one-way ticket, which we have previously acknowledged is evidence in favor of forfeiture, see United States v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $150,660.00, 980 F.2d 1200, 1206 (8th Cir. 1992), and he gave a vague explanation, attributed to advice from an unidentified third person, about why he elected to return by car. Gonzolez purportedly carried $125,000 in cash with him on his flight, for the purpose of buying a truck that he had never seen, from a third party whom he had never met, with the help of a friend whose name he could not recall at trial. This testimony does not inspire confidence in the innocence of the conduct. When he was stopped by the Nebraska State Patrol, Gonzolez was driving a rental car that was leased in the name of another person who was not present, another circumstance that gives rise to suspicion. Then, when Gonzolez was questioned by officers, he lied about having money in the car and about the names of his friends, thus giving further reason to question the legitimacy of the currency’s presence. See $117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413 F.3d at 829. The totality of these circumstances – the large amount of concealed currency, the strange travel pattern, the inability to identify a key party in the purported innocent transaction, the unusual rental car papers, the canine alert, and the false statements to law enforcement officers – leads

_____

¹ The government argues that the district court erred by according only “slight” probative value to the canine alert. That precise language, however, was drawn from one of our decisions, see $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d at 502, and the government in this case presented no expert testimony or other scientific evidence that might warrant a stronger inference. Cf. United States v. Funds in the Amount of $30,670, 403 F.3d 448, 457-59 (7th Cir. 2005). The significance of canine alerts is largely a scientific question, and absent a developed record, we decline to expand on our previous pronouncements in this area.

[7]

- - - - - - - - - -

most naturally to the inference that Gonzolez was involved in illegal drug activity, and that the currency was substantially connected to it.

While the claimants’ explanation for these circumstances may be “plausible,” we think it is unlikely. We therefore conclude that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant currency was substantially connected to a narcotics offense. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

[8]

- - - - - - - - - -

It was a civil proceeding brought by Gonzolez as claimant of the currency. It was not a criminal proceeding brought by the government.

That's the YELLA drug addict loving anarchist SPIN of this article, the asshole writer of this article and the filthy criminal cocksucking poster of the article ALL KNOW THIS... but count on really high braindead potheads that get riled up easy to read this shit and riot like Ferguson apes.

This is Decktards own personal VENUE to trash by pimping drugs and trashing constitutionally tested laws... because that filthy fucking scumbag asshole doesn't like the law.

Sleep with dogs, wake with fleas.

"When you are going to carry more cash, never mention it on phone, email or Internet. They will not know that they can grab it."

Right. And when you're stopped by the police, deny you have any cash. When they discover it, make up some bullshit story about how you got the cash and what you were going to use it for. And be sure you have no way to prove any of it. Then change that story at least three times.

By the time you're done, law enforcement will be so confused they'll just let you go. Promise.

"When you are going to carry more cash, never mention it on phone, email or Internet. They will not know that they can grab it."

Right. And when you're stopped by the police

When they know you have cash they will stop you and grab it. Unless you are one of them.

"It was a civil proceeding brought by Gonzolez as claimant of the currency. It was not a criminal proceeding brought by the government."

Correct. And to be clear, the currency was seized under civil, not criminal, asset forfeiture laws by the State of Nebraska, not the federal government.

"When they know you have cash they will stop you and grab it."

Not me. I have receipts. (at 1:40)

And to be clear, the currency was seized under civil, not criminal, asset forfeiture laws by the State of Nebraska, not the federal government.

The money was seized by a state officer pursuant to a lawful traffic stop for speeding, during a consent search, as evidence of illegal activity.

The United States Government is allowed to seize any property "used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense." The currency in evidence was seized pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881.

The money was not seized for having committed a crime. It was seized as evidence on suspicion of its being substantially connected to a drug trafficking offense. It consisted of 140 $100 bills, 999 $50 bills, 2,932 $20 bills, 208 $10 bills and six $5 bills.

It was declared forfeit to the Federal government under the Federal Asset Forfeiture law by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The mopes whose drug money was taken tried to get it back in a civil proceeding. Mope #1 (Gonzolez) claimed $40,000; Mope #2 (Morgan) claimed $20,000; and Mope #3 (Gomez) claimed $64,700. In a court of competent jurisdiction, it was proven to be substantially connected to a narcotics offense.

It is not necessary for the government to prove who committed the crime in order to seize the fruits of the crime. Neither is such necessary for the fruits of the crime to be forfeited under the Federal Asset Forfeiture law.