Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Justice Dept. policy allows authorities to seize suspicious bank accounts
The Washington Times ^ | March 31, 2015 | Maggie Ybarra

Posted on 03/31/2015 3:50:21 PM PDT by jazusamo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: jazusamo
"Upon a supervisor’s approval, the prosecutor must then file a criminal indictment or civil complaint against the owner of the seized funds within 150 days or return those funds."

150 days = just after the money can do no harm in the 2016 election.

41 posted on 03/31/2015 4:59:09 PM PDT by MilesVeritatis (Devote yourself to the truth, no matter where it leads you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Would using a can of white paint be racis’ ?


42 posted on 03/31/2015 4:59:09 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Wasn’t there an announcement just last month that they would no longer be freezing accounts for suspicion of “structuring” if there was no other evidence of criminal activity?

I guess we should have known that was too good to be true. Turns out, they just stopped freezing the accounts because they intend to SEIZE the accounts instead.


43 posted on 03/31/2015 5:00:13 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

> Banks need to go down.

I agree, provisionally — banks should not get special treatment, for good or ill. Most ‘regulations’ [of banks] are legally unsound and ought to be repealed. (Most of the cited justification for regulation is actually covered under common law [e.g. fraud], and even normal criminal law [e.g. theft]).

Stripping them of their special protections would allow honest interactions; stripping the burdensome regulations would allow real market-forces to work on the banks.

> Are credit Unions exempt?

I don’t know.


44 posted on 03/31/2015 5:02:41 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2; All
"Repeal Filburn v Wickard."

I totally agree.

In fact, using terms like “some concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDR’s thug justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn.

“In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was “necessary and proper” to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit [emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”—Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

FDR’s activist justices had watered the 10th Amendment down to a wives’ tale imo.

45 posted on 03/31/2015 5:03:05 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I’m with Jerry Doyle -—> Banker Gangsters -—— the Fed included.


46 posted on 03/31/2015 5:08:29 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

You are only limited by what you supermarket carries and you imagination.


47 posted on 03/31/2015 5:12:46 PM PDT by GraceG (Protect the Border from Illegal Aliens, Don't Protect Illegal Alien Boarders...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Kool...... thnx


48 posted on 03/31/2015 5:16:56 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Yes — But I’m saying even Gangsters may be punished under “normal laws”, we don’t NEED special laws [like RICO] to punish them for their wrongdoing.


49 posted on 03/31/2015 5:23:46 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
There should be no asset forfeiture until there is a criminal conviction, and then only what and how much the court specifies.
At no time should bureaucrats, cops or feds have any right to confiscate property or cash without a court order.

50 posted on 03/31/2015 5:36:40 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

there needs to be courts and stuff involved before government agencies take things and money away from people


51 posted on 03/31/2015 5:40:38 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Yup, and depends on their definition of ‘criminal’. That could be any TEA party members.


52 posted on 03/31/2015 5:42:16 PM PDT by Hardens Hollow (Couldn't find Galt's Gulch, so created our own Harden's Hollow to quit paying the fascist beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1; GeronL
At no time should bureaucrats, cops or feds have any right to confiscate property or cash without a court order.

Both of you couldn't be more correct. The Injustice Dept is overstepping their constitutional authority in a big way on this.

53 posted on 03/31/2015 5:48:12 PM PDT by jazusamo (0bama to go 'full-Mussolini' after elections: Mark Levin....and the turkey has.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Good post!


54 posted on 03/31/2015 5:50:17 PM PDT by Osage Orange (I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
You can also bury these in the back yard.

Not since they are made out of plastic... You might just forget where you put them in a few years, and might want to use a metal detector to find them (which doesn't work on plastic)... Back to your basic Mason jar... That particular lesson cost me about $1200.00

55 posted on 03/31/2015 6:02:21 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bgill
Of course this has nothing to do with his new ruling that banks must report deposits of $5000+. Naw, move along, nothing to see.

10,000 dollars, 5,000 dollars - those figures are for the rubes.

The computer programs they're using to monitor this stuff is looking for "out of the ordinary" stuff in amounts that make it worth their while.

For example, if you did 1,000 - 2,000 dollar deposits over a period of weeks, in a totally new pattern for you, totally 15-20K, that would make the computer perk up its ears.

56 posted on 03/31/2015 6:06:13 PM PDT by kiryandil (making the jests that some FReepers aren't allowed to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sten
when did we sign over access to our finances to these people?

To be fair, we signed over our real estate & houses first, without a whimper (property taxes).

I guess they figured we wouldn't complain about this, "if it catches just ONE dirty money-launderer!"

57 posted on 03/31/2015 6:08:19 PM PDT by kiryandil (making the jests that some FReepers aren't allowed to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Not that is matters anyhow (since it has not been followed for over 100 years), but there’s a few Amendments, somewhere in there, that specifically deny such tyranny.

Say, what’s the word from the GOP and party leadership about such a blatant, in-your-face police state tactic??

*crickets*


58 posted on 03/31/2015 6:28:10 PM PDT by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73; All
"Say, what’s the word from the GOP and party leadership about such a blatant, in-your-face police state tactic??"

Regarding GOP you would think that since the RINO-controlled House has read the Constitution out loud at the beginnings of the last several legislative sessions that the GOP would be aware of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

But I’m not betting any money on it.

59 posted on 03/31/2015 6:50:53 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; i_robot73; All
Sorry about post 59. I’m getting the threads mixed up.
60 posted on 03/31/2015 6:54:23 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson