It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cash Seized For Speeding

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:39 AM

Originally posted by apc
Plus there's always been the IRS regulation that deposits over $10,000 must be declared.

Do you have a source for that? I know banks are required to advise the feds of cash transactions over 10,000 but I have never in my life heard I was required too declare any transaction of 10,000 and over, nor have I ever been questioned by the IRS.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:41 AM
Ok, here are some answers: Probable cause is defined as having reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. It goes FAR beyond mere suspicion, and in court an officer must be able to give demonstrable evidence that would convince any reasonable person that a crime in fact was at issue.

If a cop pulls you over for a broken taillight, he has reasonable grounds to believe that you are in default of a motor vehicle law, a misdemeanor. That means he has the right to issue you a ticket. Thats all. If he notices, while doing his stop, that you have open containers, or smell like pot or booze, or evidence of any other crime, then that changes the dynamic and he may charge for whatever is discovered.

However, in most states, a petty vehicle law being violated does NOT give the cop reason to tow your car, or arrest you. If the car is unsafe and falling apart, then of course the cop can tow it.But the real issue is what cops do to get CONSENT, which is what they crave, as it eliminates all problems for them about any searches. Probable cause is more definite and requires more evidence than mere ' reasonable grounds' which is a lesser requirement. If a cop SEES you violate a law, then that is probable cause, it someone reports a crime and he does not see it, and he acts on that info, that is reasonable grounds for a further look, but it is NOT probable cause.

When you go to court, the judge decides if probable cause exists to sustain a charge; if not it is dismissed. If so, it goes forward.Simple. But, cops CANNOT get probable cause from your refusal to cooperate or answer questions, no way. It canot be used as a basis for further attention to you. The fact that you demand that your rights be observed is NOT cause for cops to be suspicious, although they are and they try to coerce and badger people into giving up their rights. It makes iot easy for them to harrass and charge people who give up their rights.

It is perfectly LEGAL in ALL states for a citizen to record police in public, just as they can record us.No law prevents it. Of course the dirty dog cops try and use other laws not iontended for that use to intimidate and try and stop it, but when it reaches court, it will be thrown out. Here is the law: If you are recording TWO people, neither of whom know that you are doing so, then that can be called wiretapping. But, as long as ONE party to the conversation knows that they are being recorded, then it is OK.

For example, if a cop tells you that you cannot film him, he is lying. They just HATE to be filmed as they break the law so much and hate being caught at it. Thats the entire reason for them to object; if they were following the laws and rules, they should WELCOME video as it would prove that the cops were doing the right thing; but the truth is that cops do the WRONG thing so often that they hate video.

But it is legal, and they are liars, of course. As long as you stand clear of the scene and do not physically interfere with the cops doing their thing, it is legal. As long as YOU are aware of the video, it is legal. Cops have NO EXPECTATIONS of privacy while doing their jobs, plain and simple. If someone walks up to you with a camera rolling, you have a choice of walking away, or acting in a way that would not discredit you. Cops, however, hate the thought of ANY oversight and as they violate the laws and the rights of the people so often they KNOW that cameras will get them in trouble, so they fight them tooth and nail.

The cockroaches ( cops ) HATE the light being shined on THEM, and they will resist any attempts to show them at what they really do, abusing citizens and their rights as a normal party of their day. Cops HATE to have their bluff called, but it works wonders. If some cop says " Hey, turn that camera off or I will charge you with ( fill in the blank with a lie ) "..Just say " Wonderful!! That means I get to sue you in Federal court for violating my civil rights..let's go!!" Challenge them and they back off; not many cops want to face attorneys and juries when they are lying and have no law to back them up. Call their bluff and watch them run; cops HATE it when a citizen relishes the thought of a chance to ruin a cops life and takes a stand.

Cops work MOSTLY on bluff and intimidation, they threaten and growl and bluster, but it is all an act. When it all boils down, the cops have to sign their names on any arrests and charges and that means they are committed to it and are liable for it. Cops COUNT on the citizen being afraid and scared of being arrested; but being arrested is no big deal and for some petty charge that is obviously a sham, you will be out fast and can then file charges against the cop and start a lawsuit. So do NOT be afraid of calling a cop's bluff; if they have PROBABLE CAUSE, they will NOT talk and threaten, they will just arrest you. If they do NOT have any probable cause, then they have to rely on bluffs to get us to back down.

So, in summary, there is NO LAW in any state that gives the cops the right to photograph us while we cannot do the same, it does not exist and no one can find it. Cops must have PROBABLE CAUSE , which is more definite than suspicion, to effect a legal arrest or charge. Cops CANNOT use your refusal to speak or answer questions against you; it does NOT give them any legal basis for further action. It is a BLUFFING game, and cops are experts at it; as sickening as it is to understand that cops, supposedly SERVING us, use subterfuge and lies and threats as part of their sick games against us, it is the truth.

Make it simple and clear to any cop that is harrassing you and threatening you that you will be DELIGHTED to be arrested for some phony charge, as that is all you need to file a Federal civil rights lawsuit against him PERSONALLY. Let them know that you have NO FEAR of a few hours in jail and that the cop is doing you a FAVOR if he arrests you falsely: It gives you the ammo you need to finish the creeps off in court and hopefully take their savings and home and car and ruin their lives, which is only possible by suing them.

Let any cop that bothers you know that getting a charge dismissed is the BEGINNING of your revenge, and that you are more than willing to take it all the way. SHOW NO FEAR !! Cops can smell fear like their dogs can smell dope: Cops use fear and bluff as a routine practice, so know the law and use it!!

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:46 AM
Also, the riules about cash are these: If you make a deposit of over 10k in CASH, a form has to be filled out. You do NOT have to tell your business or what its about, but you must fill out the form for the bank to turn in. It applies to CASH only; you can get a cashiers check for a million dollars out of your account and nothing is required.

I have made some hefty cash deposits in my time and the form is just name and address, thats all. No big deal. It just gives the Feds a way to try and provide a tracking mechanism for later investigations should anything arise. But for NON CASH deposits and withdrawls, no forms are required.

No doubt someday it will be even worse and more restrictive but for now only cash deposits are covered by that rule. We are living in a horrible state of affairs when the Feds can bother us about our money, but such it is.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:50 AM
Sorry, but I keep forgetting points: it is NOT the IRS that the forms are from, it is from the FDIC and its minions, who allegedly have some duty to make sure that money that they are insuring against theft is from a source that can be traced, especially in large amounts. The IRS has NOTHING at all to do with those reporting forms, someone heard wrong.


posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by shots

Yeah I should have specified cash. We were talking about cash so I neglected to clarify.

Also eyewitness is correct $10K cash deposits are not reported to the IRS, just the feds. It is deposits $10K or greater to foreign accounts that must be reported to the IRS (Source: The Complete Guide to Financial Privacy - Mark Skousen)

[edit on 28-9-2007 by apc]

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by Azazelus

In Georgia, the police are NOT allowed to use unmarked cars for traffic stops.....Once or twice, I've had them flash their lights (blue) at me, but no attempt to make me stop....

This restriction exists because there were toooo many instances in the past, of rapist pretending to be officers in 'unmarked' police cars.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Also, the riules about cash are these: If you make a deposit of over 10k in CASH, a form has to be filled out. You do NOT have to tell your business or what its about, but you must fill out the form for the bank to turn in.

The only form one has to fill out is the banks deposit ticket, there are no other forms required. Ask any business manager for stores, etc. who routinely make cash deposits in excess of 10K.

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:51 PM

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Carrying anything over the excess of $10,000 is enough to raise suspicion for a search by an officer. It is grounds for suspicion that the person is linked to drug trafficking.

Bush has made it into law now that anyone withdrawing $10,000 in cash from the bank must declare what the money is intended for and where it came from.

This is called the Bank Secrecy Act and it started in 1970. It has undergone many changes since then including an amendment in 1997 that added "suspicious transactions".

Now, it has to be stated that the Patriot act has made many changes to the Bank Secrecy Act as well, but to say that President Bush started this is not accurate.

Please check here for more details:

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:01 PM
I have searched and been unable to find any instances of these draconian "laws" being challenged on Constitutional grounds.

Is anyone aware if such a challenge has been made?

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 11:21 PM
If eventually there turns up no evidence of a crime the money will have to be returned.

Anyone who carries that much money in his car is asking for a whole lot more trouble than a police investigation.

Seventy-one miles per hour?

It must have been a school zone.

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 11:43 PM
getting the seized monies returned is not as simple as you think... it may require you to hire a lawyer and by the time you pay lawyer fees and court costs, your lost money will have dwindled significantly


posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:44 AM
Not may, will. The DEA has a habit of using the fact that almost all money has drug residue on it to justify a forfeiture. When there is no probable cause to associate the money with trafficking, people have to battle their way through appeals to order their money returned. Lawyers are expensive, and to my knowledge noone who has succeeded in getting their money back has also recovered their legal expenses.

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:19 PM
It isn't just the cops. I know a few good cops, but they are few!

The judges can be biased too. I had one rule in my case in the cop's favor even though she lied through her teeth.

Best just to lay low, even if innocent. Its too bad the chap lost all his money, but that is the price we pay for "public safety". Doesn't mean its right, its just the way it is, and is more likely to get worse, not better.

The nail that sticks up gets pounded down.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in