FBI misled judge who signed warrant for Beverly Hills seizure of $86 million in cash

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Overseeall

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

So, just allow all the criminals to withdraw their criminal profits? Make sense, let those illegal immigrant drug dealers keep their money right so they can go to another state and continue on?

Makes no sense to me.

You don't make any sense. Do you have any proof that the items in the safety deposit boxes are "criminal profits"?
I just had to have the items in my box appraised to increase the insurance on them because over time the items have become more valuable. None of those items are "criminal profits".

The owners of the company admitted that their clients were drug dealers and that they helped launder money. Did you read the linked article?

Sounds like the owners committed a crime.
What were they charged with?
Oh, that’s right… they were not charged.
There is a pesky little thing called the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution that is protecting the customers of the facility, because the warrant specifically stated that the boxes were off limits.

So, you support the illegal immigrant criminals taking their money out and getting away? Even after the owner of the company admitted their customers were criminals....I am definitely not a legal expert, but wouldn't RICO apply as laundering would constitute a criminal enterprise?

a reply to: Overseeall

Then the God Damn FBI should have turned the owner in to a CHS( We all know the FBI just loves them they use them so much) and built a case against 1400 owners.

But they damn well didn't do that did they?

They stole as much as they could from everyone.

a reply to: neo96

I am not saying your course of action is better or worse...I am sure there would have been a better way.

They stole as much as they could from everyone

I would say confiscated the money to prevent criminals from taking their profits and fleeing or worse, moving to another state and continuing their crimes.

a reply to: Overseeall

It was premeditated theft.

confiscated is a legal term and what the FBI did here was ILLEGAL.

a reply to: Overseeall

You make a lot of assumptions.

The vault is in Beverly Hills, not South Central...

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: neo96

I am not saying your course of action is better or worse...I am sure there would have been a better way.

They stole as much as they could from everyone

I would say confiscated the money to prevent criminals from taking their profits and fleeing or worse, moving to another state and continuing their crimes.

So if you had money in one of those safety deposit boxes, you would be all cool about the FBI "confiscating" it behind your back?

Sure you would...

a reply to: Overseeall
Kindly show proof that any one of the customers were criminals.
You're taking the word of criminals (the owners that admitted guilt, yet were not charged) that some of their customers may have been guilty of a crime.

You really don’t see the problem with what you are advocating here?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Overseeall

It was premeditated theft.

confiscated is a legal term and what the FBI did here was ILLEGAL.

Exactly. This was burglary, plain & simple, with the FBI as the perpetrators.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Overseeall

It was premeditated theft.

confiscated is a legal term and what the FBI did here was ILLEGAL.

Exactly. This was burglary, plain & simple, with the FBI as the perpetrators.

How much of the $86 million will "The Big Guys" Biden-Garland-Wray get?

a reply to: Overseeall

I read that article and others. Reason.com has been following this from the beginning. The Warrant specifically excluded the safety deposit boxes. Did you read that? The FBI had no legal reason to touch the boxes.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: neo96

I am not saying your course of action is better or worse...I am sure there would have been a better way.

They stole as much as they could from everyone

I would say confiscated the money to prevent criminals from taking their profits and fleeing or worse, moving to another state and continuing their crimes.

So if you had money in one of those safety deposit boxes, you would be all cool about the FBI "confiscating" it behind your back?

Sure you would...

I would probably keep it with a large well established bank.

Additionally, I doubt that this establishment would consider me as a client.

a reply to: Overseeall
I am a Constitutionalist, making it highly unlikely that I am a ‘left winger’.

originally posted by: Overseeall

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Overseeall

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

So, just allow all the criminals to withdraw their criminal profits? Make sense, let those illegal immigrant drug dealers keep their money right so they can go to another state and continue on?

Makes no sense to me.

You don't make any sense. Do you have any proof that the items in the safety deposit boxes are "criminal profits"?
I just had to have the items in my box appraised to increase the insurance on them because over time the items have become more valuable. None of those items are "criminal profits".

The owners of the company admitted that their clients were drug dealers and that they helped launder money. Did you read the linked article?

Sounds like the owners committed a crime.
What were they charged with?
Oh, that’s right… they were not charged.
There is a pesky little thing called the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution that is protecting the customers of the facility, because the warrant specifically stated that the boxes were off limits.

So, you support the illegal immigrant criminals taking their money out and getting away? Even after the owner of the company admitted their customers were criminals....I am definitely not a legal expert, but wouldn't RICO apply as laundering would constitute a criminal enterprise?

I support the FBI LEGALLY doing their job. Since they had to resort to ILLEGALLY doing this, then, yes, I support the criminals taking their money out and getting away with it. The FBI likely will not be able to use any of the evidence from the safe deposit boxes now because of their lies. Fruit of the poison tree. How many criminals will go free now because of them?

To turn it around on you, do you support the FBI coming into your house with an illegal warrant just to make sure you're not committing any crimes? If you say you have nothing to worry about because you've done nothing wrong, then you are one of the most naive persons I've seen in a long time. You better wake up quick, they are not your friend.

There's a reason for the 4th amendment and they SWORE an oath to uphold it - to keep our law enforcement in check so they don't end up becoming Stasi.

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: neo96

I am not saying your course of action is better or worse...I am sure there would have been a better way.

They stole as much as they could from everyone

I would say confiscated the money to prevent criminals from taking their profits and fleeing or worse, moving to another state and continuing their crimes.

So you think they're just going to give it back to all the people they deem "non-criminals" without years of litigation. Dang.... I'm speechless.

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

I support the FBI LEGALLY doing their job. Since they had to resort to ILLEGALLY doing this, then, yes, I support the criminals taking their money out and getting away with it.

Sounds like Brandon logic. I disagree, where there is smoke, there is fire.

Not really. They aren't criminals until there is evidence against them that can and is presented in a court of law and convicted.

I once called the fire department because I saw an explosion and a big plume of smoke go up at a neighbors house. Come to find out, they were just lighting their grill. While they may have used a bit much lighter fluid to light it, THERE WAS NO FIRE.

Do you support guilty until proven innocent?

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

I support the FBI LEGALLY doing their job. Since they had to resort to ILLEGALLY doing this, then, yes, I support the criminals taking their money out and getting away with it.

Sounds like Brandon logic. I disagree, where there is smoke, there is fire.

Not really. They aren't criminals until there is evidence against them that can and is presented in a court of law and convicted.

I once called the fire department because I saw an explosion and a big plume of smoke go up at a neighbors house. Come to find out, they were just lighting their grill. While they may have used a bit much lighter fluid to light it, THERE WAS NO FIRE.

Do you support guilty until proven innocent?

lol.

Criminal standing beside a bank with a big bag with a dollar sign on the side, bills spilling out....bank right next to him has alarm sounding, dead security guard on the street......move along citizen, I cant prove you did it.


I support common sense.

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: neo96

I am not saying your course of action is better or worse...I am sure there would have been a better way.

They stole as much as they could from everyone

I would say confiscated the money to prevent criminals from taking their profits and fleeing or worse, moving to another state and continuing their crimes.

So you think they're just going to give it back to all the people they deem "non-criminals" without years of litigation. Dang.... I'm speechless.

Yes, confiscated items from those individuals found to not be involved will be returned. No litigation required for the innocent.

Is anyone really surprised? What's the deal with the fbi wanting money? It is also shades of what's alleged about that civil war gold. Defunding the fbi should be a priority, with the goal of their complete disbanding. Heads need to start rolling over the fbi's actions.