Posted on 11/01/2014 6:21:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Receipts are supposed to be issued. If the corruption is so bad that not even that happened, then perhaps a measure like what banks use, i.e. chemically or radioactively mark the cash, and then promptly notify the FBI, would be in order.
There are so many great, safe jurisdictions in the world to bank, to invest, to own property, and to store assets. And you can set all of this up without leaving town.
Canceling passports and closing airports is even easier.
You needn't think, when the crisis arrives, that they are just going to let an income-producing, wealth-holding asset like you just walk right out the door, do you?
No matter how horrid the circumstances, God never backs down on His promises which relate to heavenly wealth.
The answer to the “why” question provides the background to the persons actions that night.
Possible scenarios (some good, some bad)
He is engaged in business where there are cash receipts such as a restaurant (tips and such)
He is engaged in a business that deals only on cash (or checks; many small businesses such as car repair do this) .
OR
another type of business that is doing a cash basis for nefarious reasons.
THAT is the defining question, and the reason for asking “why”?
They should not be able to keep it without proving something in court
http://www.coachisright.com/tag/john-anderson/
A more enlightening article about Mr. Anderson’s case.
He has gone to court and according to this article is expected to prevail. It should also be noted that drug dogs did alert, although no drugs were found.
Its what the reporter left out of the story.
That is what I am emphasizing.
It is what is left out of the story, is what changes the whole picture.
I am faulting the reporting.
Not the guy that had his $ stolen by the cop.
Here’s how I see it.
— The man had cash with him
— It is not a crime to carry cash
— there was no evidence that he had committed a crime
Thats it. Over and done. I really don’t care “why” he had the cash. And he shouldn’t have to explain it.
People don’t sue because they can’t take discovery.
Any competent attorney can face down “drug dog alert” in court. Much/most US currency is already tainted with the stuff and it is well known and easily provable.
Now if the question is, should due process be easier and if so, how, then by all means let that debate be conducted.
Many of us still believe in “karma” if not direct divine retribution. If it actually was fishy, many will move on to a case of more repute.
Agree with you on this.
My beef is with the reporting of the story.
Investigative reporters should find the background of the person.
Of what kind of business was he an owner/partner?
Upthread I gave a couple examples of types of businesses where there would be a large amount of cash being transported.
And some folks will trump up certain aspects of a situation in order to grind a certain axe. “Sovereign citizen” has been associated with a lot of fishy things historically. The country that calls out “no king but Jesus” is on firm foundation; “sovereign citizen” has feet planted firmly in midair.
good questions
That indeed does suggest some things about the news organ.
I might say the ‘authorities’ are criminalizing our existence to justify theirs.
It would seem that lawyers everywhere LIKE these laws. Gets them work. Oh wait a minute, isn’t it mostly lawyers that are legislators and write the laws ??!?
Skill in the law is a neutral thing. It can be put to good or nefarious purposes.
You’re absolutely right — especially WRT divorce cases; I honestly don’t believe that men would be screwed over as much as they are if there were a jury in place.
Well said!
I saw that source “sovereign man” and thought of those “sovereign citizens groups....
Axe to grind indeed...
Did that guy have any licence plates?
WHY was he pulled over in the first place?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.