Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"The Department Of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today"

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   





The Department Of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

I live a fairly simple life and that didn’t change much after I sold TechCrunch in 2010. I didn’t buy a new house or even a new car. The one thing I did splurge on was a boat...

I named her Buddy. It has state of the art electronics and a fairly new highly efficient propulsion system that the TechCrunch audience would be interested in...



Sounds pretty straight forward, right?

The article continues:



Buddy has to clear customs, part of the DHS, since she was built in Canada. My job was to show up and sign forms and then leave with Buddy (WA sales tax and registration fees come a week later). DHS takes documents supplied by the builder and creates a government form that includes basic information about the boat, including the price.

The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars. It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.

I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars. I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.

The DHS agent didn’t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. “It’s just paperwork, it doesn’t matter,” she said. I declined. She called another agent and said simply “He won’t sign the form.” I asked to speak to that agent to give them a more complete picture of the situation. She wouldn’t allow that.

Then she seized the boat. As in, demanded that we get off the boat, demanded the keys and took physical control of it.





What??????

The next part seems strangest of all:




What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her.



Just when you think things can't get stranger, they do.

WTF?

Seems like this was just really a pretext to seize the boat. I wonder why?

Any thoughts?

Spooky times.
edit on 22-2-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)
edit on Fri Feb 22 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed quote a bit IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Here is betting that if and when he gets it back, it will not be in new condition.
And the guy has to hire an attorney, this is sickening.





edit on 22-2-2013 by burntheships because: pic



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


No doubt.

But there has to be more to this story. It's hard to understand under what authority they would seize the boat...

Definitely worth following this one.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


More and more, I am seeing this kind of thing, its like he said it seemed
they were excited about seizing the boat.

Seems like they are finding new ways to make ordinary law abiding citizens
into a means of revenue for the bloated beast of governance, since the double
dip recession, tax revenue has dropped sharply....they are getting creative now.

He better get on it quick, or they may auction that boat off.
www.treasury.gov...



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Too many stories like this and negative results will inevitably take place. How is someone supposed to navigate the system when the system is swarming with sharks that will turn you out at whim?

It's stories and actions like this that will force people to act on the wrong side of law. It is a self serving abomination, that is feeding off of the innocent.How soon until we find stories like this taking place right in our own hometowns?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Call the Sheriff and report it stolen. DHS has no authority to seize the Boat



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Call the Sheriff and report it stolen. DHS has no authority to seize the Boat




Not sure where you get this from-- DHS operates the Customs agency, and as such has "the right" to search and/or seize anything coming into the country. Especially if there is something illegal, or if you refuse to comply with the paperwork or pay the appropriate taxes on the item(s). Not saying its right... just that they've been doing it since forever....



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by hawkiye
Call the Sheriff and report it stolen. DHS has no authority to seize the Boat




Not sure where you get this from-- DHS operates the Customs agency, and as such has "the right" to search and/or seize anything coming into the country. Especially if there is something illegal, or if you refuse to comply with the paperwork or pay the appropriate taxes on the item(s). Not saying its right... just that they've been doing it since forever....


I get it from the constitution and supreme court rulings and united states code. Its still theft of property and the DHS has no authority to confiscate property for a paperwork glitch. As long as people keep putting up with this # it will keep happening and getting worse.


U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):
“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”... If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional

Murdock v. Penn. 319 US 105
1943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution... No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 262
1962)
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can
ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

Title 18, US Code Sec.2381:
In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you
fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of
office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.

Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:
Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that's what justice is all about.

There is more but that should suffice for now.




edit on 24-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I hate to inform you but you are completely wrong on this issue per law.

19 C.F.R. PART 162—INSPECTION, SEARCH, AND SEIZURE

Title 19 - Customs Duties

Subpart A—Inspection, Examination, and Search

§ 162.21 Responsibility and authority for seizures.


(a) Seizures by Customs officers. Property may be seized, if available, by any Customs officer who has reasonable cause to believe that any law or regulation enforced by the Customs Service has been violated, by reason of which the property has become subject to seizure or forfeiture. This paragraph does not authorize seizure when seizure or forfeiture is restricted by law or regulation (see, for example, §162.75), nor does it authorize a remedy other than seizure when seizure or forfeiture is required by law or regulation. A receipt for seized property shall be given at the time of seizure to the person from whom the property is seized.

(b) Seizure by persons other than Customs officers. The port director may adopt a seizure made by a person other than a Customs officer if such port director has reasonable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture under the Customs laws.

(c) Seizure by State official. If a duly constituted State official has seized any merchandise, vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or other conveyance under provisions of the statutes of such State, such property shall not be seized by a Customs officer unless the property is voluntarily turned over to him to be proceeded against under the Federal statutes.

[T.D. 72–211, 37 FR 16488, Aug. 15, 1972, as amended by T.D. 79–160, 44 FR 31956, June 4, 1979]


§ 162.22 Seizure of conveyances.


(a) General applicability. If it shall appear to any officer authorized to board conveyances and make seizures that there has been a violation of any law of the United States whereby a vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or other conveyance, or any merchandise on board of or imported by such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or other conveyance is liable to forfeiture, the officer shall seize such conveyance and arrest any person engaged in such violation. Common carriers are exempted from seizure except under certain specified conditions as provided for in section 594, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1594).

(b) Facilitating importation contrary to law. Except as provided in §171.52(b), every vessel, vehicle, animal, aircraft, or other thing, which is being or has been used in, or to aid or facilitate, the importation, bringing in, unlading, landing, removal, concealing, harboring or subsequent transportation of any article which is being, or has been introduced or attempted to be introduced into the United States contrary to law, shall be seized and held subject to forfeiture. Any person who directs, assists financially or otherwise, or is in any way concerned in any such unlawful activity shall be liable to a penalty equal to the value of the article or articles involved.

(c) Common carrier clearance. Unless specifically authorized by law, clearance of vessels within the common carrier exception of section 594, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1594), shall not be refused for the purpose of collecting a fine imposed upon the master or owner, unless either of them was a party to the illegal act. The Government's remedy in such cases is limited to an action against the master or owner.

(d) Retention of vessel or vehicle pending penalty payment. If a penalty is incurred under section 460, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1460), by a person in charge of a vessel or vehicle and the vessel or vehicle is not subject to seizure, such vessel or vehicle may be held by the port director under section 594, Tariff Act of 1930, until the penalty incurred by the person in charge has been settled.


law.justia.com...:2.0.1.1.14.3.2.1



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


And what's to stop said customs official from planting a narcotic in the boat and making a "real" criminal out of someone who was just buying a boat?

Our country is turning into Mexico.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Hopechest
 


And what's to stop said customs official from planting a narcotic in the boat and making a "real" criminal out of someone who was just buying a boat?

Our country is turning into Mexico.


Nothing as far as I know but that wasn't the point.

I was simply responding to the poster who said that customs officials have no authority to seize a vessel.

They do.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Why does the "Department of homeland security" title remind me of Nazi Germany?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
To facilitate the situation you should have made a note regarding the currency for the price and the correct price in USD and initial that notation and then sign it with a secondary note that changes were made and initialed. I would then ask the agent to initial as a witness to your note regarding the price clarification.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
To facilitate the situation you should have made a note regarding the currency for the price and the correct price in USD and initial that notation and then sign it with a secondary note that changes were made and initialed. I would then ask the agent to initial as a witness to your note regarding the price clarification.


From the article though it sounds like they weren't interested in helping the guy out and simply wanted to assert their authority.

It certainly doesn't sound like an issue to lose your boat over.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I hate to inform you but you are completely wrong on this issue per law.

19 C.F.R. PART 162—INSPECTION, SEARCH, AND SEIZURE

Title 19 - Customs Duties

Subpart A—Inspection, Examination, and Search
[/url]


No I am not wrong I am 100% right! The Supreme court has ruled I am right as I posted above and the constitution is the supreme law of the land per the supremacy clause and all the judges in every state are bound by it and take an oath to uphold it! The Supreme court is the final court of arbitration on the matter! They cannot violate your rights nothing in the Constitution authorizes them with such authority therefore the statute you quoted is unconstitutional and null and void from inception and you can ignore it with impunity. You need not wait for some court to rule it unconstitutional. Further if you read my post above where I cited THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and Supreme Court when officers violate peoples rights they can be sued personally and tried for treason.

People only have need to assert their rights. Look up Laches in a law dictionary it basically says if you do not assert your rights you do not have them. The peoples ignorance of their rights and the constitution that protects them is what has allowed a huge body of unconstitutional statute law to be passed and foisted on the people and in their ignorance think they are bound to obey it and officers in their ignorance or treason enforce them and further intimidate people in to obeying them.

Many people have beat them using the cases I have cited but the majority are ignorant. Wake up people your freedom lies in front of you but you need to pick it up and assert it!

edit on 24-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Update to yesterday’s post. A day after Buddy was seized by DHS I now have my boat in my possession and at my slip.


Source

The coast guard "lady" messed up big time. But she got her joy ride out of it anyway so I doubt she'll care.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


They've even tricked us into calling a depression a "double dip recession"
.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Ah yes, A lowly DHS employee who got too big for their britches obviously can be linked to the "bloated beast of governance".

I guess it's not too surprising that this leap of logic was made...



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Sounds like a very small cog in a very large machine screwed up. DHS is a huge organisation. That doesn't mean all it's staff are intelligent, thoughtful or considerate in their duties. Some will be jumped up nobodies getting high on the petty powers they might have.

This woman *sounds* like she didn't have the intelligence or education to know the significance of correct numbers on a bill or why the guy had a problem with signing it.

The title might be more accurate as 'Mindless Jobsworth Screws Up and Costs Me My Boat!

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I think there seems to be alot missing between a refusal to sign the forms and the seizure of the boat.

All of this doesnt add up.





new topics




 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join