It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Couples good luck rewarded with JAIL TIME

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I can see what you're saying, but according to the law, nope.
It would be considered "misplaced".

The smart thing for the couple who bought the suitcase to do would've been to not say anything outright, sit on it for a few months and see if anyone came looking for it. If time passed and no one came for it, then it would be considered "treasure trove".
If someone approached them and had foreknowledge of the exact (or approximate) amount and location of where the money was found, then they have every right to recover it and it is still rightfully theirs.




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 


Well that sucks.



They should at least be allowed to put it in an interest bearing account and keep whatever interest it had gained in the meantime.

Maybe that is what the couple who found the money was doing, you can't blame them for that.

The people who lost the money should have no claim to the interest since the money was stored in such a way that they never could have collected interest on it anyway.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 

Well that sucks.



This.

Past that I'd do my best to find some legal loop-hole/precedent/ambiguous wording.


IMO, you don't get to hide $100k in something as easily losable as a suitcase and get to cry about it when you dick up and give it away.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by eNumbra]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual

You don't need to steal an item from the actual person for it to be theft. If you have an item that isn't yours then it isn't yours, it's pretty obvious, it doesn't matter how you got it.


YES IT DOES!!!!

They BOUGHT the item LEGALLY!

That is WHY it matters!!!!

It's THEIRS according to the LAWS of COMMERCE!

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


No, it's not.
I would've thought it was theirs outright, but according to the laws here in the States, it still rightfully belongs to the husband who stashed it.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
So I guess every time I buy something from now on, Im a thief.

Pepsi could come out tomorrow, and say there was a item in my bottle that was not meant to be there.

Then they can have me arrested for stealing it, since I drank that pepsi.

What a load of bull this whole thing is.

Proves our society is collapsing.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


No, it's not.
I would've thought it was theirs outright, but according to the laws here in the States, it still rightfully belongs to the husband who stashed it.


No, he sold or gave away the item.

Therefore he has no further claim.

That includes all items contained in the "package" deal.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Okay, first, your pepsi line is not even comparable to the actual case.
Second, the guy who stashed the money did not give the item away, his wife did, and did so without his consent or knowing.
It's still his money. Period.
Just let this one go, man.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


No, it's not.
I would've thought it was theirs outright, but according to the laws here in the States, it still rightfully belongs to the husband who stashed it.



Do you at least agree with us that this law SUCKS?


What ever happened to finders keepers- losers weepers?

THAT should be the law in this case.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Okay, first, your pepsi line is not even comparable to the actual case.
Second, the guy who stashed the money did not give the item away, his wife did, and did so without his consent or knowing.
It's still his money. Period.
Just let this one go, man.


Pepsi and suitcases are products in a marketplace.

Why is the suitcase not argued as being stolen? Only the contents are? BS.

If the suitcase was sold legally, than the contents within are sold.

He should take this up with his wife, perhaps he should not sign a legal document with a woman that makes them both the same legal entity essentially????

If his wife sold it, it was hers to sell. Otherwise where is the prenuptial agreement?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


You give the money back because it's the right thing to do.

End of story.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


You give the money back because it's the right thing to do.

End of story.


Than I would ask for the money back that I paid for that money.

It makes sense to me.

But then again, legally, they cant force a retraction.

So I could keep it.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Do you at least agree with us that this law SUCKS?


What ever happened to finders keepers- losers weepers?

THAT should be the law in this case.


Well yeah, but I can see both sides to the issue.
That's why I asked my super smart sexy law school girlfriend to weigh in on it, and she gave me the law right from the books.
The owner never gave away or lost or misplaced the money, he has full rights to recover it. If he donated the suitcase, it would be a completely different story.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


You give the money back because it's the right thing to do.

End of story.

Moral Relativism.

End of story.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Dude, you're reaching now just because you don't feel like being wrong.
This isn't about my opinion, I just stated the law as it appears in the actual law books and how it would be viewed by a court.
It's not about "ifs, ands or buts", it's about clearly defined law.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Also why is it that Police blame any 100,000$ in a suitcase on drugs or organized crime.

But this time they aren't?

Who is this guy with suitcases full of 100,000$?

Looks like mafia to me.

Why are the police attacking the innocent bystanders here when we have some dude with suitcases full of 100,000$?

If you get caught with 100,000$ anywhere, they WILL CONFISCATE IT and claim it's DRUG MONEY.
100% FACT.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


You give the money back because it's the right thing to do.

End of story.



I agree, that would be the right thing to do.

The problem is, the people never even bothered to ask. They just sent in the police to take the finders away in cuffs and never gave them the opportunity to do the right thing.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
Well yeah, but I can see both sides to the issue.
That's why I asked my super smart sexy law school girlfriend to weigh in on it, and she gave me the law right from the books.
The owner never gave away or lost or misplaced the money, he has full rights to recover it. If he donated the suitcase, it would be a completely different story.

Does the marriage really not affect ownership of the money? Could he then say he wants the briefcase back too since she donated it?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Dude, you're reaching now just because you don't feel like being wrong.
This isn't about my opinion, I just stated the law as it appears in the actual law books and how it would be viewed by a court.
It's not about "ifs, ands or buts", it's about clearly defined law.


Show me where this law exists.

I don't think it has been clearly defined at all.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Just a point of clarification.

The suitcase was given to the husband by a friend of his to 'hold onto'. His wife donated the suitcase without consulting her husband, not knowing it wasn't theirs let alone what was inside it.

This money doesn't belong to either of them, it belongs to a 'friend' of the husbands...

Just gets murkier doesn't it


Stupid bloody law, I reckon if I pay for something it's mine regardless of what's in it or where it came from.

[edit on 7/4/10 by damn_ummmm]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join