Want proof:
Posted on 04/06/2012 4:06:04 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
Reader Rob Carty has directed our attention to this week’s opinion by Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in the forfeiture case of The United States of America v. $35,131.00 in United States Currency. Mr Carty briefly summarizes the decision:
Judge Hughes spanked Homeland Security for tricking an American family into “evading” their duty to report how much cash they were taking out of the country. It contains some very choice words. My favorite quote: “In addition to overreaching the people whom they are to serve, three officers wasted one-half day watching four others embarrass themselves.”
Here is my favorite quote:
A lack of leadership at the agency allowed this. Its mission statement – which none of the officers could recall at the trial – is to serve the American public with vigilance, integrity, and professionalism. They displayed none of these. The agency says that integrity is its cornerstone; that its officers are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles. A gang of armed security officers bullied this family – a family who cooperated with the officers to their detriment. Our homeland will not be secure by these rascals. They played agency games, abused the people they are to serve, and violated their oaths to support the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
May he have a long and healthy life.
Want proof:
if those are actual quotes... to be honest, the thought that there is someone in the judicial system that cares about such things ... brings a tear to my eye
glimmering hope where there was none... gets to me
Photoshop? I think if that card was legit, it would be news, no?
news? no.
we already have an official investigation proving 0bama has submitted forged federal documents... and there is no coverage.
we also have a person who is british by descent AND american at birth... therefore not a natural born citizen per SCOTUS ruling minor v happersett (1874)... and no one cares. actually, it’s worse then not caring... it’s an active cover up as they ridicule and deride any that point out the obvious discrepancy
and yes, it definitely looks photoshopped
I first met Judge Hughes back in 1981-82 when he was a sitting state District Judge in Harris County. A real fine man. I can personally vouch for the integrity of Judge Lynn Hughes. He has always shined when making rulings of this nature best I can recall. A rare breed indeed.
$40,000 in walking around cash and guessed that they had half that amount. If I asked 99% how money they brought along for you vacation they would not be $20,000 off.
Not only this, but once they get their money confiscated, they still have enough to pay an additional $1,500 for a flight and continue their two month trip. I wonder how these refugees obtained their money? Even if they did so legally you can see why some red flags went off.
Arg... clicked post twice before editing.
Sure looks like a forgery to me. It’s the “In the City of New York” part. I know Columbia used to be “Kings College”, but I am surprised they still the crown as a logo.
And the “card number” is way-way too big. Seven digits would be too many.
I kinda go along with Scott Johnson’s reasoning. They were not sure if travelers checks are currency for the purpose of declaration (I would not be sure either). Homeland Security Department rules apparently call for agents to assist people when making declarations. They said they were not sure. I am not sure whether or not travelers checks are currency, but I think I tell entrapment when I see it.
The family name was Jones, it may have been an American born man married to a Somali woman. It may have been a once in a lifetime visit for the kids to see their grandmother and to see their mother’s native country.
It might help a few cosnervative politicans to make departments PAY up by losing funding and positions everytime there is judical smack down.
Ummm... that is so obviously a forgery that it is embarrassing. There were no UPC codes in public use in 1981. That particular code (39) began to be used only by the Department of Defense (and no one else) that very year.
“In a succinct one-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas declared that the law authorizing the government to obtain cellphone records without a search warrant was unconstitutional.
“The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made,” Judge Hughes wrote in the decision, dated Nov. 11. “These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion.””
—If I asked 99% how money they brought along for you vacation they would not be $20,000 off.—
I just read the entire article.
Interestingly, they had $20,000 in cashiers checks and less than the $20,000 he guessed in actual money.
If they are gonna be literal about it, I think the best way to get money out of the country is in $25 gold pieces. 399 of those would be less than $10,000 face value. You’d be golden.
I suppose my junk silver would work well too. How about 9,000 morgan silver dollars?
If I wanna put 40 grand in my pocket and walk around with it, what business is it of the federal governments??? I have a right to be secure in my person and papers, I think those words are somewhere in that pesky little document, the constitution. Another example of the slow creep of totaltarianism into our lives...
Exactly. If I want to insulate my long johns with c-notes, why is that anyone’s business but my own?
I went to a similarly-appointed college (graduated in '80) and I still have my ID (a small laminated Polaroid card). The Columbia ID in the photo is far too graphically modern to have been produced anywhere near the same time period.
Travelers Checks count under the restrictions?
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.