Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/2/2002 3:40:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 3:57:24 AM EDT by agtm]
By cathy murphy Herald/review NACO, Ariz. - U.S. Customs Service agents were acting on information that Naco businessman Ernie Rogers is involved in drug trafficking when they served two search warrants on his business and home Thursday. Friday, the agency's public information officer, Vince Iglio, confirmed that agents seized $193,000 in cash, a gun collection, all the business records and numerous photographs at Rogers' Border Service. Iglio said no drugs were found in the business or the Rogers home. Rogers, a prominent businessman and civic leader in this border community, denies any ties to drug trafficking. Rogers said he kept his life savings in a safe at his business. Rogers said he bought his first tow truck in 1975 and has sold 286 vehicles since then. He said he had all of the paperwork in his office. He said the money he made from the sale of the vehicles went into the savings account or was used to build his new house. Asked why kept so much money in his safe, Rogers said he doesn't trust anybody, including bankers. Rogers said the federal seizure meant he couldn't pay his employees or make his payments into the bank account he keeps to show that he is paying his payroll taxes. Thursday, following the federal agency's raids, Rogers had complained that his employees and a customer were handcuffed and detained by the agents. Friday, Iglio said it is standard procedure to handcuff people who are uncooperative at a crime scene and to have them lie face down on the ground. He said it is for the safety of the agents and any individuals at the scene of suspected criminal activity. Rogers claims his employees were scared and offered no resistance. Rogers was not arrested following the search. His son David, 34, a former U.S. Border Patrol officer, was taken into custody for allegedly damaging federal property by allowing a flagpole he was removing from the exterior wall of the business to hit a Customs Service vehicle and denting it.
View Quote
check out the last paragraph, the guy's son was arrested for denting a fedgoon car with a flagpole? WTF!? When is the last time you've seen someone "taken into custody" for giving you a door ding in the parking lot? these siezure laws are total bullshit what purpose do they serve? how does the argument that they are constitutional go? I'd like to hear that one.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 3:48:29 AM EDT
Ever notice that it's always the drug thing? Hey, Federales! Get a new "acceptable false charges" list!
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:38:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 12:07:14 PM EDT by hielo]
Remember back 5 - 6 years ago, the "new" anti-terror law they were considering (god only knows if they snuck it through), but damaging government property would warrant the DEATH penalty. Sure, I can see it now, the ATF comes to arrest you for having 1 to many bullets in your arsenal, they face slam you into the car because you ask to speak to your loawyer, your tooth (while shattering) scratches the paint on the ATF car, bang, hang him by the neck!
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:45:28 AM EDT
So now it is illegal to keep CASH? What a bunch of B.S.!!
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:48:44 AM EDT
All federal law enforcement is becoming a bunch of JBT's. "fuck the police"-NWA c-rock
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:48:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: So now it is illegal to keep CASH? What a bunch of B.S.!!
View Quote
Guess I'm in compliance with the law then since I don't have any...
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:52:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:54:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 4:59:49 AM EDT by JoeMike98]
There is always three sides to every story. However the facts dont lie. If there where no drugs they should have left the premiss. If this is true then we are all in serious trouble. Our founding fathers new that any government left to itself can't be trusted. This is the only reason I believe our founding fathers instituted the right to bear arms. Who gives a darn about hunting laws or rights to bear arms for sporting purposes. Yea a gun is fun to shoot, and I only shoot at inanimate objects, however a gun is meant for one end purpose...TO KILL. For this purpose I believe the Founding Fathers demanded we have the right to bear arms. They new these kind of things would happen in time...and sooner than later if we did not have the means (weapons) to protect ourselves from enemies within our boarders...even if those enemies turned out to be ourselves.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:01:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164: I hate to admit it, but during the Reagan years, I was for the seizure laws, against real drug dealers. But now I realize that I was wrong. .
View Quote
Sad to say, but The Gipper is to blame for all this. A so-called conservative, Ronaldus Maximus is to blame for a HUGE increase in the sphere of gov't. No worries, thedave. You were able to think and learn. Two things that will NEVER happen in gov't.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:10:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 5:14:28 AM EDT by monkeyman]
I guess I will wait to hear more information before passing judgement on whether this guy is guilty or innocent. If he is a dope smuggler/pusher then he deserves what he gets. I am sure the Feds have SOME??? evidence to suggest that he is or they wouldn't been able to get warrant. It is kind of funny that on this board, nearly everyone assumes automaticaly that the Feds are running amock again whenever they read someone is arrested. As inept as they are, they do occasionaly arrest genuine bad guys.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:16:05 AM EDT
Hey Monkeyman, when did you stop beating your wife? Yeah, see? They just have to say someone is doing something, and we are willing to wait until the innocent party can clear hhimself, some things you just can't prove, like a negative. So why don't we take all your money, and any tangible hard goods you have, that is until you can prove you have stopped beating your wife.... (To the best of my knowledge, moinkeyman does not beat his wife now, nor has he ever beat his wife, nor do I know if he is now married or has ever been married, it is purely a point being made, not to be construed with any actual actionsmonkey man may or may not have been engaged in now or in the past.)
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:22:07 AM EDT
How can they seize this guys cash and property because they "know" he is a drug trafficer, but they don't actually arrest him?? Is that going to be the new thing? Break the speed limit and they come take your refridgerator. Double park and they come take your television and piggy bank. WTF?
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:24:40 AM EDT
Unless I missed something, this guy hasn't been in a court yet, hasn't had a trial, and hasn't been found guilty of anything. Soooooooo... give the guy his freakin money back.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:26:26 AM EDT
You guys miss the point, they haven't arrested the man, they have arrested the money. You telling me you don't know this much about RICO? You are not even involved in a RICO seizure, they take what they want, and it is up to your cash, your car, your home etc to prove itself innocent of any wrongdoing. You have no standing in the matter.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:27:58 AM EDT
I should correct that, the standing you may have is in a resisting arrest warrant. If you get in there way when they are trying to effect an arrest on your property (be it cash or hard goods) then you will be charged with resisting arrest.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:30:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo: You guys miss the point, they haven't arrested the man, they have arrested the money. .
View Quote
AND if they find ANY trace of drugs on it, its their's. I seem to remember a report that indicated some outrageous % of money (like 50%) had traces of cocaine / narcotics on it. Bub-bye cash. I dare say it AIn't a coincidence this guy, with a safe full of cash, was their target. Can you say 10,000% tax increase for this poor guy???? The solution? 1776.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:33:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By hielo: You guys miss the point, they haven't arrested the man, they have arrested the money. .
View Quote
AND if they find ANY trace of drugs on it, its their's. I seem to remember a report that indicated some outrageous % of money (like 50%) had traces of cocaine / narcotics on it. Bub-bye cash. I dare say it AIn't a coincidence this guy, with a safe full of cash, was their target. Can you say 10,000% tax increase for this poor guy???? The solution? 1776.
View Quote
Last I heard was that 99% of money would show traces for narcotics. The 1% is the stuff that hasn't left the mint yet. It is theft, plain and simple. The agents names have to be on the reports, it is up to this guy to effect some personal change. If this happens often enough, they may try other forms of revenue generating schemes.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:46:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo: The agents names have to be on the reports, it is up to this guy to effect some personal change. If this happens often enough, they may try other forms of revenue generating schemes.
View Quote
Bulldoze their houses!
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:58:16 AM EDT
Good thing about this, is that this guy is still alive. The real battle will be fought in court. If I were him, I will get a damn good lawyer, sue, and who knows...Without a probable cause or reason, the Feds will loose.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 6:01:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle: Good thing about this, is that this guy is still alive. The real battle will be fought in court. If I were him, I will get a damn good lawyer, sue, and who knows...Without a probable cause or reason, the Feds will loose.
View Quote
Suprisingly, the cost to bring this kind of case to court is...(drum roll please0... 200K So who really loses?
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 6:58:30 AM EDT
Like I said earlier...We are supposed to run our government, but in this case and many in the past our government runs us...
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:08:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo: You guys miss the point, they haven't arrested the man, they have arrested the money. You telling me you don't know this much about RICO? You are not even involved in a RICO seizure, they take what they want, and it is up to your cash, your car, your home etc to prove itself innocent of any wrongdoing. You have no standing in the matter.
View Quote
There have been numerous 'war on drugs' threads where those who say 'marijuana is addictive', blah, blah, blah, say this type of thing doesn't happen and if it does, it's okay with them. They don't see the loss of rights we suffer due to the 'war on drugs', but bemoan the loss of rights that the 'war on terrorism' might bring. One is okay, the other isn't, according to those folks.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:17:45 AM EDT
Naco? Rhymes with Waco.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:20:44 AM EDT
I expect more of people on this board than to assume one set of facts over another, just because its the Federales. Seriously, shouldn't WE more than anyone else, appreciate that the truth isn't always the first set of published facts? Feinstein MUST have been right when she said that all guns are evil. Schumer MUST be right to want complete bans. They said it first, right? THey MUST be right. Come on people, be a little more intelligent than what you're showing here.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:22:30 AM EDT
So Balzac, are you defeninding the use of RICO in *ANY* circumstance?
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:42:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:56:33 AM EDT
Is everyone here missing something? Everything was seized pursuant to a search warrant. This was something explicitly allowed in the Constitution. Search warrants on the federal side are usually much harder to get than your average local search warrant. And in order for the feds to keep the money, or any other property they seize, they will have to prove in court that there is an affirmative link between the money and the alleged criminal enterprise. Should a criminal be allowed to keep the profits from their criminal enterprise? Hell no. As far as the cash having traces of drugs on it goes, I have heard of that, and so has your prosecutors and judges. They will not be able to keep the money just because it has traces of drugs. They will have to show an affirmative link between the money and some type of felony activity, in court. As far as the prime suspect not being arrested, that is actually fairly common during the service of search warrants; often, the search warrant is based on PC for lesser offenses and the evidence gained from the search is used to gain the information needed for an indictment. And as far as Junior getting popped goes, it sounds like he was being an idiot. Stupidity generally isn't a jailable offense, but stupidity that dents the door on a government vehicle is. If he just would have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the agent's way, he would have been fine. As a "former" Border Patrol Agent, he should have known better. Makes you wonder about why he was "former." Maybe some of you folks need to put a fresh layer of aluminum foil on those hats. Don't you know that the radiation from the mind control rays can break down its protective properties over time?
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 8:00:50 AM EDT
i expected that they would at least burn the buisness down. isn't this common procedure?[pyro]
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 8:27:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: So now it is illegal to keep CASH? What a bunch of B.S.!!
View Quote
I believe it is a fedgoon felony to have more than $10K in cash in your possession. Airports have sensors that detect the magnetic stripes in cash in your pocket as you walk down the hall and can tell how much you are carrying. Don't know if there is a portable sensor tho'.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 8:44:25 AM EDT
natez..Your right.The Feds never screw up, never do unecessary harm, and we're all paranoid!
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 8:48:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Arock:
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: So now it is illegal to keep CASH? What a bunch of B.S.!!
View Quote
I believe it is a fedgoon felony to have more than $10K in cash in your possession. Airports have sensors that detect the magnetic stripes in cash in your pocket as you walk down the hall and can tell how much you are carrying. Don't know if there is a portable sensor tho'.
View Quote
No, it's illegal to deposit more than 10k without the bank reporting it to the feds. And the security thread is mylar or something, certainly not magnetic. I'd love to see a credible source to support the idea that there are sensors available to read how much cash we carry. Is someone willing to follow this case and let us know if this guy is in fact not guilty as everybody seems to assume?
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 9:16:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott:
Originally Posted By Arock:
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: So now it is illegal to keep CASH? What a bunch of B.S.!!
View Quote
I believe it is a fedgoon felony to have more than $10K in cash in your possession. Airports have sensors that detect the magnetic stripes in cash in your pocket as you walk down the hall and can tell how much you are carrying. Don't know if there is a portable sensor tho'.
View Quote
No, it's illegal to deposit more than 10k without the bank reporting it to the feds. And the security thread is mylar or something, certainly not magnetic. I'd love to see a credible source to support the idea that there are sensors available to read how much cash we carry. Is someone willing to follow this case and let us know if this guy is in fact not guilty as everybody seems to assume?
View Quote
I think I have it correct. Know for a fact you cannot depart or enter the US with more than $10K in your possession. First time I became aware of this was about ten years ago when a friend went to Las Vegas. The new airport had just opened. As he was walking down the hall he was stopped by the ubiquitous Men In Black Suits and ushered into a side room. He was ordered to present all the cash he was carrying. He had $7700 if memory serves. He asked how the suits knew and they informed him of the statute and inferred they could count the money in his pocket. BTW this guy is not flashy nor does he visit LV with any regularity. I found it amusing at the time they stopped him on his way TO LV.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 9:55:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 9:55:56 AM EDT by DScott]
Originally Posted By Arock:
Originally Posted By DScott:
Originally Posted By Arock:
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: So now it is illegal to keep CASH? What a bunch of B.S.!!
View Quote
I believe it is a fedgoon felony to have more than $10K in cash in your possession. Airports have sensors that detect the magnetic stripes in cash in your pocket as you walk down the hall and can tell how much you are carrying. Don't know if there is a portable sensor tho'.
View Quote
No, it's illegal to deposit more than 10k without the bank reporting it to the feds. And the security thread is mylar or something, certainly not magnetic. I'd love to see a credible source to support the idea that there are sensors available to read how much cash we carry. Is someone willing to follow this case and let us know if this guy is in fact not guilty as everybody seems to assume?
View Quote
I think I have it correct. Know for a fact you cannot depart or enter the US with more than $10K in your possession. First time I became aware of this was about ten years ago when a friend went to Las Vegas. The new airport had just opened. As he was walking down the hall he was stopped by the ubiquitous Men In Black Suits and ushered into a side room. He was ordered to present all the cash he was carrying. He had $7700 if memory serves. He asked how the suits knew and they informed him of the statute and inferred they could count the money in his pocket. BTW this guy is not flashy nor does he visit LV with any regularity. I found it amusing at the time they stopped him on his way TO LV.
View Quote
First, you said it's a felony to possess more than $10K. Not true, and you'll have to prove that assertion. Again, I think you're confusing possession with the need to report larger than $10k deposits. Second, you can take our or bring in as much money as you want, you just have to declare it if it's more than $10k.
Money and Other Monetary Instruments You may bring into or take out of the country, including by mail, as much money as you wish. But if it's more than $10,000, you'll need to report it to Customs. Ask the Customs officer for the Currency Reporting Form (CF 4790) (PDF). The penalties for not complying can be quite severe. "
View Quote
U.S. Customs website [url]http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/travel/travel.htm[/url] Third, those security strips are not magnetic, nor readable, AFAIK. Can you prove otherwise? Maybe they stopped him going into Vegas because they figured there would be nothing left afterwards? [;D]
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 10:07:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: Is everyone here missing something? Everything was seized pursuant to a search warrant. This was something explicitly allowed in the Constitution. Search warrants on the federal side are usually much harder to get than your average local search warrant. And in order for the feds to keep the money, or any other property they seize, they will have to prove in court that there is an affirmative link between the money and the alleged criminal enterprise. Should a criminal be allowed to keep the profits from their criminal enterprise? Hell no. As far as the cash having traces of drugs on it goes, I have heard of that, and so has your prosecutors and judges. They will not be able to keep the money just because it has traces of drugs. They will have to show an affirmative link between the money and some type of felony activity, in court. As far as the prime suspect not being arrested, that is actually fairly common during the service of search warrants; often, the search warrant is based on PC for lesser offenses and the evidence gained from the search is used to gain the information needed for an indictment.
View Quote
No, there was no pretense of anything here but confiscation. They do not need probable cause, to get your money back that they steal from you it is reqauired that you put up a bond in excess of 150% of the cash value of the property that was arrested. The bond is available through one organization and they do not operate as bail bondsman do, they require 100% coverage on the bond. (no 10% here). So unless your family/friends can come up with 150% of the value of your property, you can not even sue to get it back. If it is parceled out to any organizations before you can sue to have it returned to you, you forfeit it. Any amount of cash is subject to seizure, based on probable cause, any tangible goods are subject to siezure again, based on probable cause. Probable cause can be officer suspicion or a broken tail light. I feel much safer.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 10:50:20 AM EDT
This is pretty slick of the govt.,first you point an accusing finger ,then you take his cash from him,then you don't arrest him,now he has no money to hire a decent lawyer(if there is such a thing,LOL)so you are screwed ,case closed. This is how people end up losing it and walking into a fed building with semi auto's blazing ,and they will say "gun nut on unprovoked rampage"news at 11.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 11:14:30 AM EDT
Do you have a link or url to that story? Thanks.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 11:30:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 11:34:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 11:40:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 11:44:21 AM EDT by Arock]
Originally Posted By DScott: First, you said it's a felony to possess more than $10K. Not true, and you'll have to prove that assertion. Again, I think you're confusing possession with the need to report larger than $10k deposits. Second, you can take our or bring in as much money as you want, you just have to declare it if it's more than $10k.
Money and Other Monetary Instruments You may bring into or take out of the country, including by mail, as much money as you wish. But if it's more than $10,000, you'll need to report it to Customs. Ask the Customs officer for the Currency Reporting Form (CF 4790) (PDF). The penalties for not complying can be quite severe. "
View Quote
U.S. Customs website [url]http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/travel/travel.htm[/url] Third, those security strips are not magnetic, nor readable, AFAIK. Can you prove otherwise? Maybe they stopped him going into Vegas because they figured there would be nothing left afterwards? [;D]
View Quote
The point about declaring any amount over $10K may be correct. We have a "Drug Interdiction Task Force" operating in my county that confiscates money all the time. Some of this money is confiscated simply on possession, when there is no other reason. This Task Force is Federally funded with a very ambiguous chain of command, responsibility and authority but their money comes from DC. I'll work on the sensor thing and get back.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 11:40:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 4:12:31 PM EDT by prk]
Originally Posted By natez: Is everyone here missing something? Everything was seized pursuant to a search warrant. This was something explicitly allowed in the Constitution. Search warrants on the federal side are usually much harder to get than your average local search warrant. And in order for the feds to keep the money, or any other property they seize, they will have to prove in court that there is an affirmative link between the money and the alleged criminal enterprise. Should a criminal be allowed to keep the profits from their criminal enterprise? Hell no. As far as the cash having traces of drugs on it goes, I have heard of that, and so has your prosecutors and judges. They will not be able to keep the money just because it has traces of drugs. They will have to show an affirmative link between the money and some type of felony activity, in court. As far as the prime suspect not being arrested, that is actually fairly common during the service of search warrants; often, the search warrant is based on PC for lesser offenses and the evidence gained from the search is used to gain the information needed for an indictment. And as far as Junior getting popped goes, it sounds like he was being an idiot. Stupidity generally isn't a jailable offense, but stupidity that dents the door on a government vehicle is. If he just would have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the agent's way, he would have been fine. As a "former" Border Patrol Agent, he should have known better. Makes you wonder about why he was "former." Maybe some of you folks need to put a fresh layer of aluminum foil on those hats. Don't you know that the radiation from the mind control rays can break down its protective properties over time?
View Quote
Sorry, but this time, you're full of sh**. I would have just said 'incorrect' but you made that aluminum foil remark, showing how out of touch with reality you really are, here. Why don't you get off the street until you know what you're talking about? Maybe you could benefit from some re-education of the topic. Federal Seizure law puts the burden of proof on the victim to show that the seized property was NOT used in the alleged illegal activity in question.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 11:53:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 12:20:38 PM EDT by Arock]
Originally Posted By DScott: And the security thread is mylar or something, certainly not magnetic.
View Quote
It is Mylar. It is also magnetic. In the 1970's I spent considerable time working with a company that made magnetically programmable Mylar strips. The company was Graham Magnetics and they made a computer memory product called [b]"magnetic tape"[/b]. Or you might remember those things you used to put in your tape player. That is magnetized Mylar strips. I'm working to find out what the term "Dual threshold magnetic detection" means. It's used on currency sorters and counters made by companies like Magner.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 11:59:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 12:13:32 PM EDT by Big_Bear]
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 12:20:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 12:22:48 PM EDT by prk]
Anybody who hasn't read this piece of actual journalism as it use to be (factual, unbiased) should grab some coffee, sit down, and open their mind. [url]http://www.kcstar.com/projects/drugforfeit/[/url]
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 1:45:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By prk: Sorry, but this time, you're full of sh**. I would have just said 'incorrect' but you made that aluminum foil remark, showing how out of touch with reality you really are, here. Why don't you get off the street until you know what you're talking about? Maybe you could benefit from some re-education of the topic. Federal Seizure law puts the burden of proof on the victim to show that the seized property was NOT used in the alleged illegal activity in question.
View Quote
Okay PRK, your little "comment" was uncalled for. Why don't you keep it clean. Did you read the article? The stuff was seized pursuant to a warrant. Also, remember that Seizure laws have changed in the last several years. There has to be an affirmative link between the property seized and a criminal offense. Burden of proof is on the Prosecution," who has to prove (albeit at a lower standard, preponderance of evidence) that the property in question was the proceeds from illicit activity. As far as "re-education" goes, how much training on search and seizure do you have? How many search warrants have you written? How much property have you ever seized from someone? What the heck do you really KNOW about this subject matter? If all you "know" is what you read on the Internet, then your education in this subject matter is sorely lacking. I have professional training on this (as recently as last month), I have written and served search warrants, and I have seized property, both pursuant to a warrant and without, using warrantless seizure exceptions defined by case law and agency policy. There can be abuses of this. The biggest ones were in roadside seizures of cash with no affirmative link to illegal activity, which was tantamount to sanctioned theft. Several rural agencies got their rear ends handed to them in court over this kind of activity, and rightfully so, but this situation isn't even close. This situation regards the seizure of property pursuant to a warrant, and is jsut plain different. If you don't get that, then maybe you do need a couple more layers of foil. BTW, the link you posted was completely full of crap.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 3:30:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Arock:
Originally Posted By DScott: And the security thread is mylar or something, certainly not magnetic.
View Quote
It is Mylar. It is also magnetic. In the 1970's I spent considerable time working with a company that made magnetically programmable Mylar strips. The company was Graham Magnetics and they made a computer memory product called [b]"magnetic tape"[/b]. Or you might remember those things you used to put in your tape player. That is magnetized Mylar strips. I'm working to find out what the term "Dual threshold magnetic detection" means. It's used on currency sorters and counters made by companies like Magner.
View Quote
Sure, I remember mono (!) reel-to-reel and 8-tracks even! But then, I also remember push-button transmissions on cars, too! I couldn't find anything on the security strips being "readable" on a quick search of the internet. It seems beyond our technology to be able to detect, read, sort and parse the data contained on the strips. It's daunting to do it reliably at contact distances at times, let alone from conversational distances or further out. What's the relationship between magnetic field strength and distance? Isn't it inversely related?
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:13:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 8:02:53 PM EDT by meshuggah]
Originally Posted By natez:
Originally Posted By prk: Sorry, but this time, you're full of sh**. I would have just said 'incorrect' but you made that aluminum foil remark, showing how out of touch with reality you really are, here. Why don't you get off the street until you know what you're talking about? Maybe you could benefit from some re-education of the topic. Federal Seizure law puts the burden of proof on the victim to show that the seized property was NOT used in the alleged illegal activity in question.
View Quote
Okay PRK, your little "comment" was uncalled for. Why don't you keep it clean. Did you read the article?
View Quote
[b]I[/b] did.
The stuff was seized pursuant to a warrant.
View Quote
Warrant to do exactly what? Please post a copy of it. I'm interested in whether the warrant specifically named the cash in question. Surely you don't mean that as long as there a warrant to arrest someone, or search for /seize some (other) evidence, that ANYTHING that happens in the process is OK? If that were true, there wouldn't be a body of law dealing with exclusion of evidence, would there?
Also, remember that Seizure laws have changed in the last several years. There has to be an affirmative link between the property seized and a criminal offense. Burden of proof is on the Prosecution," who has to prove (albeit at a lower standard, preponderance of evidence) that the property in question was the proceeds from illicit activity.
View Quote
Sure about that? Can they just claim it's "traceable"? Also, can the person be found "not guilty", but still lose the property in question? Or is it automatically returned to the place and person it was taken from? Without needing a hearing & lawyer?
As far as "re-education" goes, how much training on search and seizure do you have? How many search warrants have you written? How much property have you ever seized from someone? What the heck do you really KNOW about this subject matter? If all you "know" is what you read on the Internet, then your education in this subject matter is sorely lacking.
View Quote
He did not claim to be an expert, but was deflating your comment. We could all benefit from better knowledge not only of the law, but also of how it gets used and ab-used in real life. I found this on the internet: [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/981.html[/url] [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/982.html[/url] Seems like a good start. Notice all the protections for you, citizens, and your musket.
I have professional training on this (as recently as last month), I have written and served search warrants, and I have seized property, both pursuant to a warrant and without, using warrantless seizure exceptions defined by case law and agency policy.
View Quote
..., but this situation isn't even close. This situation regards the seizure of property pursuant to a warrant, and is jsut plain different. If you don't get that, then maybe you do need a couple more layers of foil. BTW, the link you posted was completely full of crap.
View Quote
If it was [b]completely[/b] full of crap, why don't you present your complete analysis proving wrong all the factual statements in just [b]one[/b] of those articles?
Top Top