7 ms·

The violation of rights isn't great, the article also mentions seizing cash which may be just as bad or worse in some cases. One person cited in the article was

The violation of rights isn't great, the article also mentions seizing cash which may be just as bad or worse in some cases. One person cited in the article was traveling to purchase a truck and the deal fell through ($30k), an elderly man and his daughter had $82k siezed (why they were traveling with that much cash wasn't mentioned).

throwawaymanbot 2y ago
[dead]
perihelions 2y ago
- "(why they were traveling with that much cash wasn't mentioned)" You can read or watch their story here[0,1]. They're not shy about what happened to them—they sued the US government to get everything back (with the pro bono assistance of the nonprofit IJ). [0] https://ij.org/press-release/pittsburgh-retiree-sues-federal-government-to-get-his-life-savings-back/ https://ij.org/press-release/pittsburgh-retiree-sues-federal... ("Pittsburgh Retiree Sues Federal Government to Get His Life Savings Back" (2020)) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsre7I0UUJA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsre7I0UUJA (" DEA & TSA Take $82,000 Life Savings From Pittsburgh Retiree") - "Terry, 79, is a retired railroad engineer born and raised in Pittsburgh. For many years, he followed his parents’ habit of hiding money in the basement of their home. When Terry moved out of his family home and into a smaller apartment, he became uncomfortable with keeping a large amount of cash. Last summer, when his daughter Rebecca was home for a family event, Terry asked her to take the money and open a new joint bank account that he could use to pay for dental work and to fix his truck, among other needs..."
- plagiarist 2y ago
  In a functioning justice system the government might be able to place a temporary hold on the money, but would need to promptly return it when declining to press charges or on an acquittal. Literal theft.
  - bsimpson 2y ago
    It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture (gov euphemism for said literal theft). I believe John Oliver did a piece on it when he first joined HBO.
  - Zak 2y ago
    A temporary hold like that only seems just to me in a case where someone had been charged with a crime and the money is alleged too be evidence or proceeds of that crime. Civil forfeiture is a way for the government to enforce criminal laws with a lower standard of proof and fewer protections for the accused. That's a bad thing.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    A functioning justice system in a free country has no legitimate reason to seize property without any prior suspicion of wrongdoing and an order from a court.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      > any prior suspicion of wrongdoing That's still an incredibly low bar: the DEA agent may "smell marijuana on the person" or get a "hit" from a K9
      - immibis 2y ago
        why not say canine?
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        A "canine" is any kind of dog. A "K9" is a very specific type of dog used in US law enforcement, specially trained to act as if it smelled something when it sees a special signal from its handler.
        sangnoir 2y ago
        The same reason I said "DEA agent" and not "an adult of working age" - the specificity of the role matters. I used a metonym for the animal as the police departments that work with dogs are called "K9 units"
julianeon 2y ago
You should be free to travel with 10MM cash if you want. If the government wants to claim it, they should file a lawsuit against you. Just taking it is Divine Right of Kings nonsense.
- fazeirony 2y ago
  this right here. i hate this move to a cashless society and hate getting stink-eyed because i buy something with a $20 bill. these seizures all but codify this.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    The annoying thing is that a $50 bill is worth 20 1989-dollars but you can't spend them as freely without the risk of refusal or criminal suspicion.
- dogman144 2y ago
  warts and all, this is what cryptocurrency provides for an digitized economy rapidly moving towards cashless digital-first payments.
wing-_-nuts 2y ago
While I don't think it should be within the government's right to seize cash without reason, i can't imagine why you'd carry cash for such transactions and not a cashier's check. It also gives you some negotiating power because you can say 'we agreed on x, I brought a check for x, the price is x or I'm walking'.
- 1024core 2y ago
  Because a cashier's check is for a fixed amount; you can't change its value on the spot without going through the whole process again. Suppose you show up to buy a truck with #30K in cash (the truck is listed for $30K). You inspect the truck, and find that the A/C needs to be fixed, which would cost you, say $3K. So you decide to split the repair cost with the seller, and now the truck will cost you $28.5K. If you have cash, this is simple: you just hand over $28.5K. But if you have a cashier's check?
  - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
    You walk. In that case, I would walk regardless because I would ask if there were any issues with the vehicle and if a problem with the A/C wasn't disclosed, what else wasn't disclosed? When I show up to buy a vehicle, the only thing I'm doing is taking it to a mechanic for a look over, and completing the purchase if it's all clear. That's it. The time for disclosure and negotiation is over. Not negotiating things in person (as opposed to over email where I have it in writing) has saved me countless hours over the years and made buying things much more pleasant.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      Yeah, the smart move is to walk, but we're not all perfectly rational spherical car buyers. You've made all that time investment, and having cash and being adaptable is just easier.
- alasdair_ 2y ago
  > i can't imagine why you'd carry cash for such transactions and not a cashier's check. because people forge cashier's checks far more easily than they forge cash. I certainly wouldn't take one as payment for a truck without going to the issuing bank first and withdrawing the money (as cash). In which case, there is no need for the check.

throwawaymanbot 2y ago

[dead]

perihelions 2y ago

- "(why they were traveling with that much cash wasn't mentioned)" You can read or watch their story here[0,1]. They're not shy about what happened to them—they sued the US government to get everything back (with the pro bono assistance of the nonprofit IJ). [0] https://ij.org/press-release/pittsburgh-retiree-sues-federal-government-to-get-his-life-savings-back/ https://ij.org/press-release/pittsburgh-retiree-sues-federal... ("Pittsburgh Retiree Sues Federal Government to Get His Life Savings Back" (2020)) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsre7I0UUJA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsre7I0UUJA (" DEA & TSA Take $82,000 Life Savings From Pittsburgh Retiree") - "Terry, 79, is a retired railroad engineer born and raised in Pittsburgh. For many years, he followed his parents’ habit of hiding money in the basement of their home. When Terry moved out of his family home and into a smaller apartment, he became uncomfortable with keeping a large amount of cash. Last summer, when his daughter Rebecca was home for a family event, Terry asked her to take the money and open a new joint bank account that he could use to pay for dental work and to fix his truck, among other needs..."

plagiarist 2y ago
In a functioning justice system the government might be able to place a temporary hold on the money, but would need to promptly return it when declining to press charges or on an acquittal. Literal theft.
- bsimpson 2y ago
  It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture (gov euphemism for said literal theft). I believe John Oliver did a piece on it when he first joined HBO.
- Zak 2y ago
  A temporary hold like that only seems just to me in a case where someone had been charged with a crime and the money is alleged too be evidence or proceeds of that crime. Civil forfeiture is a way for the government to enforce criminal laws with a lower standard of proof and fewer protections for the accused. That's a bad thing.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  A functioning justice system in a free country has no legitimate reason to seize property without any prior suspicion of wrongdoing and an order from a court.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > any prior suspicion of wrongdoing That's still an incredibly low bar: the DEA agent may "smell marijuana on the person" or get a "hit" from a K9
    - immibis 2y ago
      why not say canine?
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        A "canine" is any kind of dog. A "K9" is a very specific type of dog used in US law enforcement, specially trained to act as if it smelled something when it sees a special signal from its handler.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        The same reason I said "DEA agent" and not "an adult of working age" - the specificity of the role matters. I used a metonym for the animal as the police departments that work with dogs are called "K9 units"

julianeon 2y ago

You should be free to travel with 10MM cash if you want. If the government wants to claim it, they should file a lawsuit against you. Just taking it is Divine Right of Kings nonsense.

fazeirony 2y ago
this right here. i hate this move to a cashless society and hate getting stink-eyed because i buy something with a $20 bill. these seizures all but codify this.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  The annoying thing is that a $50 bill is worth 20 1989-dollars but you can't spend them as freely without the risk of refusal or criminal suspicion.
dogman144 2y ago
warts and all, this is what cryptocurrency provides for an digitized economy rapidly moving towards cashless digital-first payments.

wing-_-nuts 2y ago

While I don't think it should be within the government's right to seize cash without reason, i can't imagine why you'd carry cash for such transactions and not a cashier's check. It also gives you some negotiating power because you can say 'we agreed on x, I brought a check for x, the price is x or I'm walking'.

1024core 2y ago
Because a cashier's check is for a fixed amount; you can't change its value on the spot without going through the whole process again. Suppose you show up to buy a truck with #30K in cash (the truck is listed for $30K). You inspect the truck, and find that the A/C needs to be fixed, which would cost you, say $3K. So you decide to split the repair cost with the seller, and now the truck will cost you $28.5K. If you have cash, this is simple: you just hand over $28.5K. But if you have a cashier's check?
- wing-_-nuts 2y ago
  You walk. In that case, I would walk regardless because I would ask if there were any issues with the vehicle and if a problem with the A/C wasn't disclosed, what else wasn't disclosed? When I show up to buy a vehicle, the only thing I'm doing is taking it to a mechanic for a look over, and completing the purchase if it's all clear. That's it. The time for disclosure and negotiation is over. Not negotiating things in person (as opposed to over email where I have it in writing) has saved me countless hours over the years and made buying things much more pleasant.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Yeah, the smart move is to walk, but we're not all perfectly rational spherical car buyers. You've made all that time investment, and having cash and being adaptable is just easier.
alasdair_ 2y ago
> i can't imagine why you'd carry cash for such transactions and not a cashier's check. because people forge cashier's checks far more easily than they forge cash. I certainly wouldn't take one as payment for a truck without going to the issuing bank first and withdrawing the money (as cash). In which case, there is no need for the check.