The “Free” State Steals $39,000

39
3369
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Armed government workers in New Hampshire – the supposed “free” state – pulled over Edward Phipps for a minor traffic violation in October of 2016. Apparently, he was driving slightly faster than the posted speed limit and may have been tailgating.

It cost him $39,000.

Phipps made the mistake of carrying an “excessive” amount of cash – a mistake he didn’t know not to make since there’s no law against carrying any amount of cash, in New Hampshire or anywhere else.

There is, however, a war on some drugs.

Which has become a kind of Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich for the United States – with the main difference being that the targeted class isn’t Jews but rather everyone.

Or at least, their money.

Under the auspices of this war on some drugs – the term being a rhetorical device with no real standing in law, since no formal declaration of war on any drugs has been passed by Congress – such things as having to charge a person with a crime and then convict him of having committed it (the person having had the opportunity to defend himself in court against the charge prior to conviction) before relieving him of property or liberty are no longer legally required before armed government workers may simply steal what they deem to be “excessive” amounts of cash, contrary to the fact that is not illegal to carry any amount of cash, anywhere in the United States.

Phipps had $46,000 in his possession – which the armed government workers stole from him – because they can. Because they are armed and work for the government and that’s what an armed government worker can do.

And so, they did.

They do it all the time. They did it to Rustem Kazazi earlier this year. The 64-year-old was relieved of almost $60,000 – his life savings – by armed government workers at the Ohio airport where he was trying to catch a plane to his native Albania, where he had planned to use the money to buy a retirement home.

As in the movie Deliverance, if they want your money, they’ll take your money. Only it’s not savage hillbillies doing the taking.

It is a savage government.

Phipps attempted to recover his money, pointing out that he hadn’t been charged with any crime, much less convicted. Also that possession of $46,000 in cash is as legal as possession of a trunkful of Diet Coke.

Odd, perhaps – but not illegal.

Which raises the question of . . . legality.

Armed government workers style themselves law enforcement, which presumes they enforce laws – and ought to know the law and abide it. This includes the laws regarding the sanctity of property (and person) unless the property in question has been determined, via due process, to not be the lawful property of the person who is found in possession of it.

An armed government worker can’t just take (and keep) your car be claiming it is “excessive” or that you look “suspicious.”

Not yet.

Soon, perhaps.

After all, why not?

Consider: What law was violated in the case of Phipps and the thousands of others who have had their lawful property stolen by law enforcers? Is it not the presumptive obligation of law enforcement to establish that a law has been broken prior to administering punishment? And more relevant – to protect people’s lawful property rather than steal it?

All of the above was dismissed by the federal armed government worker to whom Phipps naively appealed for succor – or at least, enforcement of the actual laws. Such as the laws prohibiting theft – which is what was perpetrated upon Phipps, no matter how many badges the thieves had pinned to their chests. And there is also the law requiring “just compensation” when armed government workers relieve people of their rightful property. And – most fundamentally – the lawfully required presumption of innocence until guilt has been established. Rather than the other way around.

It did not matter.

What did matter was the assertion of “suspicion” by the armed government workers that the $46,000 found in Phipps’ car was “connected” to illegal activity. This is of the same species as needing to pass Obamacare so you can find out what’s in the bill  . . . after it’s been passed.

Only worse because at least Obamacare was actually passed. Our “representatives” – a majority of them – did vote for it.

When did it become a presumptive criminal act to carry cash? When was the vote held? What is the number of the bill?

When was a law passed stating that carrying a certain amount of cash is “excessive” – in order that honest, law-abiding people know not to carry that amount – so as not to be relieved of it by badge-wearing thieves?

Is $7,500 “excessive”? It certainly could be – in the eyes of an armed government worker interested in pocketing it. I mention this sum because it’s the amount of cash I carried with me a few years back to purchase my current pick-up truck. My reasoning – not that it matters, or ought not to matter given that carrying cash is legal – was that (a) sellers are motivated by cash and (b) sellers generally will not let you drive away in a vehicle unless you paid for it in cash; checks often bouncing.

I wanted to buy the truck – load my bike in the bed – and drive home. Which I did. People often do exactly what I did – foolishly thinking they are safe, having committed no crime.

Luckily, I was not stopped and searched by armed government workers, who might have found the cash “suspicious” and “excessive” and relieved me of it, as they relieved Phipps and Kaazi of theirs. But it could have happened to me.

It could happen to you. It could happen to anyone.

The bottom line is this: Armed government workers can relieve anyone of any amount of cash at any time  – by uttering the magic words: “Suspicious” and “excessive.”

Eventually, after two years almost of wrangling, Phipps got back a fraction of his cash. About $6,000. The thieves of New Hampshire kept $39,000 of the total. From a man never even charged with a crime.

Heads ought to roll but won’t. And because they won’t, this will continue and get worse. Be ready for it. And whatever you do, don’t carry cash on your person – unless you don’t mind “contributing” to law enforcement.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos magnets are free to those who send in $20 or more. My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If you find it useful, consider contributing a couple of bucks!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share Button

39 COMMENTS

  1. I protested against “asset forfeiture” when the idea was first passed into law and was called “every name in the book” by my peers, colleagues, and even family members, being accused of being “soft on crime” and soft on “the war on (some) drugs”.
    Since “the chickens have (indeed) come home to roost”, all I hear is {crickets}–no acknowledgement that just maybe they might have been wrong. I accurately predicted the scenario that exists today.

  2. When I closed my Texas bank accounts, I used a wire transfer to send the money to North Carolina. Cost me $28. Which was better than the cost of hiring a lawyer to retrieve my money (less “handling charge” – yes, you’ll pay this to get it back) from some modern-day High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire.

  3. But… but… but… muh Pledge and muh Flag and muh anthem tell me that ‘Murica is the land freedom! Muh FREEDOM!

    And the po-lice are heroes! HEROES, I tell ya… keepin’ us SAFE from terrorists who hate us ’cause we’re FREE!

  4. Nobody will give a shit in the mainstream – why – because this guy will be presented as some evil rich guy who has more than his “fair” share…, and most people probably can never dream of having this much cash, and hence will never support a person who they are jealous of… sad but true….

  5. “Policy changes” are not a valid solution to this problem. The only way to fix this is for more people to be ready and willing to treat these thugs like they would treat any other armed robber.

    • Hi Anonymous,

      I agree – with great reluctance. This is outright theft, no pretense of due process. It halts me that people tolerate this. But then, they also shrugged when The Chimp announced it was now “policy” to torture people – and on the mere say-so that they were “terrorists.”

      • I think we all know what should happen to these bastards, but unfortunately, on the side of the road, ultimately, that ain’t gonna go well for you. And, maybe because it hasn’t happened to me or my wife or kids, I don’t know that I have the balls to go that far – yet. I grew up in a family of cops, father and two brothers. All of their friends are/were cops too. I’m quite familiar with the beast, and I can tell you that most of them have drinking problems, my family included. Haven’t spoken to them in years, number one because they’re basically assholes, and two, they know how I feel about their profession. Anyway, they all seem to have a favorite “hangout”, a place to go after work and get shitfaced before coming home to abuse the wife and kids (yeah, been there, done that, and watched my brother do it too). So, if one of these fuckers stole 45 grand from me, I would do a little surveillance, maybe hang out in the parking lot across from the PD, use google, etc. Figure out who he is, where he goes, and wait. One night, he’ll come out of the bar too fucked up to walk straight, and that’s when the baseball bat lands on his head. You’ll never beat these fuckers while they’re in uniform and on duty. Guerilla warfare.

        • Have to agree VZ, after reading the many outrages posted here I decided that if this ever happens to me, or a family member is assaulted, I will operate like the tag line from the old ‘Candid Camera’ tv show: sometime, somewhere, when you least expect it….. I’ll administer some street justice.

          • That’s letting them off too easy. Go after their kids first. (Sometimes Divine justice takes care of that, though. They tend not to mention it in the MSM, because they want to present these pricks as invincible saints….but sometimes ya just come across incidents, like a local porker a couple of counties over, whose two teenage sons were killed in separate unrelated accidents on the same day, 20 minutes apart. Ah, justice!!).

            • ” Go after their kids first. ”

              Uhhhh…no. One doesn’t harm the children of an aggressor to punish the aggressor. It just won’t do, old shoe.

              • Very true, Eric- It literally says that in the Bible! (I told ya Libertarians and Christians naturally have a lot in common!)

                It’s easy though, when it comes to gross injustices, for one to get carried away; and what better way to effect a little payback than to make a father watch some not-so-nice acts being perpetrated upon his sprog?

                (And while WE are not to formally punish the children for the acts of their parents, God does let it be known that He does curse the children of trhe wicked- in addition to the natural consequences that they suffer from being raised by evil parents)

                Hey, while I agree with you on this intellectually and morally, I’m sure that many of us, if a pig destroyed our life, and or something we loved, it wouldn’t be a far step to go “overboard” to try and enact a little justice which we know would never otherwise come through the corrupt system.

                Seeing all the injustices which we see today, I can fully understand how it is that some people just “snap” and cross the line, when certain bounds have been transgressed, and where there is no hope of human justice in this life.

                Just think: These pigs are basically doing the same thing, only as mercenaries, and or for fun and profit- without having had the indignity of such boundaries being transgressed, nor of being the victims of gross and brutal injustice- for in-fact, they are more often the perpetrators of such- and do so on a routine basis to people who have done them no harm.

              • True, it’s an initiation of violence, IMO. Kids also deserve a little slack for what they do. A few years ago, Bionic Mosquito was in a debate on his site with Walter Block who had stated, more or less, that the right to property justified killing kids who stole fruit from your orchard.

                I definitely didn’t agree with that. BM was pretty strongly against it, too. My view is that violence by an aggressor is justification for violence in retaliation, even after the violence is done. Retaliation is something I could only do in kind and directed only at the person who started the whole shitaree.

                • Yeah, Ed. I’m with you and BM on that ‘un!

                  A life is worth way more than fruit. Initiate the threat of violence against the property owner…then let the pieces fall where they may when that person defends his life and property- the fault in that case lies with the aggressor- but taking of life for a property crime, is not justice in anyone’s book- except perhap’s Walter Bloch’s.

                  Pigs on the other hand…

                  The threat of violence, involuntary restraint, and kidnapping, is always present, both directly from the pig at-hand, and the system which backs him up. Drastic and draconian behavior calls for the same in response.

              • Hey, this is a perfect example of why, if there were a physical fight/war for liberty, even if we had sufficient numbers….we’d lose- because our principles restrain us from brutality- whereas our enemies have no such restraint.

                I’d much rather be on the losing side in that case, though! At least being a Christian, I know justice will ultimately be served.

      • Eric,
        I don’t know if you remember my spirited discussion I had with my buddy’s wife that is running for my local city council seat, but we were “discussing” police and I asked her if she knew how cops where taking advantage of forfeiture laws, she said she’s never heard of that, and get this, she said,”well it’s never happened to me”.

        • Your buddy’s wife will have to curry favor with the local uniformed goons in order to get and stay elected. That they want the ability to shake down folks with cash or other valuables in order to ‘sweeten the pot’ (and put some directly in their pockets, don’t think that doesn’t happen) so they can buy more ‘toys’. But the real legalized larceny is in their pay and especially their RETIREMENT benefits! A quote from ‘CNN Money’ :

          But just how much do cops get paid to put their lives on the line? The median annual pay for police officers was $56,980 in 2012, according to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s much higher than the median wage for all occupations, which is $34,750, according to BLS.

          Please keep in mind that law enforcement, like any others, has folks get in but not necessarily STAY IN, for various reasons, including: some actually have a CONSCIENCE, and can’t see making it a career once they see what ‘really’ goes on. And if a “porker” does make his/her ‘twenty’, it just gets ever that much more sweeter! Hey, I’m not ungrateful for the retirement that I do have, but it sure ain’t something like 85% of salary after twenty-five years like many departments have! And the other ‘scam’ that many perpetrate is to get a ‘disability’, often for job-related ‘stress’, never mind that police work doesn’t even rank in the top ten of professions for injuries/deaths on the job!

          As a practical matter, DO NOT CARRY CASH, or at least large sums thereof. Period. Yes, you SHOULD be able to freely move about with YOUR property, but that’s just it…the almighty state sees it as ‘Gubmint’ property which ‘they’ deign to not steal from you…yet. If buying or selling a car in a private transaction, have the other party meet you at your bank, and have the teller conduct the transaction. Even if it costs you a ‘service fee’, it’s money well spent, versus the risk of encountering the “Sheriff of Nottingham”…whom seems to live down to the version portrayed in the 1973 Disney cartoon.

          • You are correct on police pensions. Almost always, pensions for porkers are based on total income, not just “base pay”. Overtime is always counted in the final determination, unlike private pensions, where the base wage is the determining factor. Many porkers will maximize their overtime in the last three to five years of their work “career” in order to “pad” their pension amount.
            In most cases, police pensions are much more lucrative than the pay received during their work careers.
            It is not unusual for a cop to get a “six-figure” pension, unlike the rest of us…

  6. “Is $7,500 “excessive”? It certainly could be – in the eyes of an armed government worker interested in pocketing it. ”

    In Chesterfield county, Va, $1100 is excessive. The amount may be even less than that, depending on the hunger of the county cop who stops you. Chesterfield county is locally known as “Arrestafield county”. It’s the worst place I know of for being subject to tickets issued based on lies, arbitrary arrests, and seizures of property.

    They have this huge courthouse complex rumored to have cost $100 million that they have to pay for, but it’s probably long paid off considering the number of tickets issued there. If you want to appear in court there or need to pay the clerk of court something, you get there an hour before the complex opens and get in line. If you’re lucky, you’ll make it through the doors a half hour or so later.

  7. This is, of course, an outrage. But I’m curious about the details, did the victim volunteer to talk to the swine, and did he consent to a search?

    The real lesson is almost always treat swine like the swine they are, give them nothing, tell them in no uncertain terms to go directly to hell for everything they don’t have a valid warrant for.

    The only solution is courage and integrity, and the fight is going to be a protracted one.

    • Hi Ernie,

      Apparently, it was a “routine” traffic stop and he had the money in a bag in plain view. The armed government workers saw it and seized it.

      Because it is “suspicious” to have large sums in cash, in a paper bag.

    • “tell them in no uncertain terms to go directly to hell ”

      Man, that reminds me of an old friend who is no longer with us. He had this deadpan look he’d give you while he said “You can go STRAIGHT to hell”. RIP, old Sam Ledbetter. A solid outlaw type bass player and singer.

    • This is why when I do have what is, for me, a fairly large ‘wad’, I also keep it on my person, flat, and not in my pockets. A simple reason: IF you’re stopped in your car (the most common means that you’ll encounter the cops), they don’t necessarily require a search warrant to go through your vehicle! They DO require “probable cause” to conduct such a search, and an “honest cop” will instead, when he doesn’t have it, engage you in “verbal judo” to trick you into “consenting”. Hence why I use the “Fair DUI” flyer, in which I’m able to communicate without SPEAKING (that way, they can’t make a claim that my breath smelled of alcohol or my speech was ‘slurred’, as I’m all the while recording the encounter) that I do NOT consent to ANY searches. This is fairly much how you know if the officer has “probable cause”, if he already does, he won’t be ASKING to search, he’ll just do it. Of course, I never admit to having anything, and my method of ‘holding’ should survive any ‘pat down’, as a flat pack of greenbacks cannot be mistaken for a ‘weapon’ during a “Terry Stop”. If somehow the ‘copper’ did detect that I have SOMETHING on me, I wouldn’t have to produce it unless it were in the course of a search incident to arrest, and then, if said arrest is being done under unjustified and/or phony pretenses, then my attorney goes to work on THAT. But if asked, ‘What’s THAT you have’, I can simply state, “I don’t wish to discuss that officer”, and if he’s pushy about it, just simply say, “no search of my person WITHOUT a warrant”! Obviously you can’t stop the cop from simply molesting you to shake out whatever you’re carrying, but in general, as long as you’ve been recording, you’ll be able to show that the search was illegal, and any seizure or any charges proceeding will NOT hold up in court!

      If you’ve thought of simply having a ‘secret compartment’ (which the cartoon hero, “Underdog”, will “Fill, with his secret ‘super’ energy pill, boy, try that line, as voiced by the late Wally Cox, with all the ‘drug warriors’ nowadays!) to hide your ‘stash’ away, just remember that many states, “Californicate” included, make the use of such a compartment a FELONY of itself IF it’s used to store ‘contraband’. You can bet your sweet ass that once your wad is found in such a compartment, the cops will charge you with this felony, and even if it doesn’t stick, they’ll have what they wanted all along, namely, YOUR dough!

      Of course, the best policy is to AVOID situations where you carry large sums of cash, period. It’s too risky anyway…it’s a shame that you’re far more likely to be ‘robbed’ by those supposedly sworn to “protect and serve”! May as well go to Mexico and deal with the “Federales”, at least you can drink Coke sweetened with REAL sugar!

    • My reading of the case of Edward Phipps is somewhat different. Apparently, it was Alex Temple who was driving a rental car with the $46,000 in the trunk. When pulled over, he consented to a search of the vehicle and gave different accounts of both how much money was in the car as well as where the money came from. He claimed it was a $4,000 loan from his sister but his sister did not back up the story- and the amount was 10x greater. Edward Phipps stepped forward to pursue recovery of the cash but never explained any of the circumstances by which Temple was carrying the cash or how it belonged to Phipps. A trial was scheduled for December of this year but Phipps settled for $7,000 instead of going to court to prove that he legally owned the money. I think that civil asset forfeiture is a horrible abuse of power and is a clear violation of our constitution because your property is seized even if you are not charged or convicted of a crime. Civil asset forfeiture has no part in a free society. This case though is a not a good example to use because it is so suspicious that it gives fuel to those who want to keep civil asset forfeiture in place.

      • Krista, the thing is, we are not supposed to be presumed guilty and required to prove our innocence; they are supposed to have to prove our quilt, which first requires that there be evidence of a crime having been committed.

        In the case Eric references in the article, was $46K reported as having been missing/stolen? And if so, then it is supposed to be up to the “authorities” to prove that their subject’s cash is indeed the missing cash.

        We are now presumed guilty until proven innocent- even when no crime has occurred.
        They’re not even claiming that a crime occurred; it’s just a ruse; a technicality: “If you can’t prove it’s yours and how you acquired it, then it’s not yours”- which, when followed to it’s logical conclusion, is really a requirement that every single thing we do and every transaction we make be documented and recorded, or else it “doesn’t count” and any property/proceeds thus acquired are free for the state to take.

        Also, if the victim of civil asset forfeiture is not entitled to possess what is his without proper documentation, how is it that the state is then allowed to possess that very same property?

        I mean really, do you think the outcome would be any different if you were in that position, and the money was your life savings, squirreled-away a few dollars here and a few dollars there over the years in cash and put in a strong box or your mattress? How would you prove that that was yours?

  8. Don’t think you can avoid any of these shenanigans with crypto currency either. Back before the Bitcoin boom/bubble I looked at what it would take to place a few Bitcoin kiosks (think ATM but for converting cash into Bitcoin and vice versa) in areas frequented by “international” citizens who might be interested in a frictionless and inexpensive way to transfer money overseas. I quickly discovered the “know your customer” rules. These are a bunch of edicts set out by Uncle to put you on the hook for someone operating a money laundering operation. From what I could figure out, if you (the vendor/dealer) don’t follow the ridiculous and overreaching privacy violations of the KYC rules you can be an accessory to fraud, assuming your customer is actually committing a fraud. Or if you can even call money laundering a fraud. These same rules apply to coin dealers, metal merchants and could probably be invoked on just about anyone who sells something that might increase or hold its value over time.

    I imagine the only reason we don’t hear about police confiscating bitcoin from a suspects’ phone wallet is only because the “tech journalists” haven’t figured out what Bitcoin is, let alone what a Bitcoin wallet is, or the language of the fourth amendment -which seems clear enough to anyone who can read at an 8th grade level.

    • RKW, i somewhat understand the overall concept of block chain or distributed ledger technology, but not how exactly one uses his computer or smart phone to make a crytocurrency transaction. My question is would it be feasible for a traveler to buy bitcoins privately from an individual in country A using local currency A and then later sell his bitcoin privately to another individual in country B in exchange for local local currency B, thereby avoiding kiosks, banks, or government-regulated exchanges?

      Also, where did you learn how to buy and sell bitcoins?

      • Hi Homeless Mack,

        Bitcoin is probably too confusing for most people – me included – in part because it is denominated in fractions. One Bitcoin was at (at the height of its value) worth something like $20,000 in U.S. dollars.So if you had say $20 in Bitcoin it was expressed in a very awkward fraction such as .000000362 Bitcoin. That’s unmanageable.

        The other problem is it’s not physical. Nothing you can actually lay your hands on. I am not a fan of that as it amounts to being pushed into an online and cashless currency and that is exactly what the government has been seeking for a long time. One cannot hide anything online from the government. Maybe some “dark web” Jedi masters can. But for most people, it’s the equivalent of doing a transmission rebuild on the kitchen table.

        I prefer specie – hard money. Gold and silver or notes denominated in gold or silver. Such money has both physical reality and tangible value as such. The value is also much harder to artificially inflate and so keeps debt-issuance in check. But most important of all, gold and silver are not under the control of any central authority and fungible across state and international borders.

        • Well said, Eric. I agree.

          As a store of wealth, medium of exchange, and unit of account AU and AG reign supreme. Plus, they are pleasing to the eye and touch, resonating in some primordial way, I suppose, with our DNA. Stardust and all that.

          Nonetheless, I wonder whether bitcoin would have temporary utility for us deplorables when we need to cross man-made borders and barriers. If Btc could be purchased anonymously or pseudonymously (Sp?) with paper fiat or PM’s in one place and then converted back to paper or PM’s in another. it would not matter, would it, whether the electronic phenomenon itself were surveilled, so long as all three parties involved, dealing peer to peer in meat space, so to speak, did not bother to reveal to each other actual names or identifying numbers. Just asking.

          • Hi Mack,

            It seems good policy (to me) to convert some of one’s assets into physical gold or silver; not as “investments” but rather as a way to protect at least some of the value of one’s assets and do so in a form that is fungible. If the system collapses, gold and silver be worth something while FRNs will be worthless.

        • That’s EXACTLY what tyrannical rulers have FEARED since the dawn of time, Eric. Hence WHY the worldwide custom of JEWELRY, the idea that gold and silver, historically precious metals in most cultures, were fabricated into a WEARABLE form. Even the intricate gold-threaded gowns of Asian women had the same purpose…to easily move one’s ‘wealth’, especially when it was necessary to ‘skee-daddle’ as even a “nobleman” or two found it necessary to do at times, in a rather ‘hurried’ manner! However, under Feudalism, when things were going well for the “Lord of the Manor”, everything within his little fiefdom was ‘his’, not only what the ‘peasants’ had, but also whatever was in the little towns that existed. Hence why most “commoners”, IF they had any money to speak of (most lived on a subsistence level, a local blacksmith’s wealth would likely be the tools of his trade and that would be fairly much it), it would be well HIDDEN as the ‘taxmen’ were expert in rooting it out for the benefit of the “king” (naturally, they got a hefty ‘cut’ for their trouble, hence their incentive to search in earnest). Of course, if you’re familiar with the concept of “Droite de Seigneur”, it wasn’t just money, or livestock, or crops that the local nobility felt they could just help themselves to at will!

          This round of highly questionable seizures is yet another symptom that the system is finding it tougher and tougher to sate an ever-increasing appetite. The solution? Stay armed and READY for when the ‘SHTF’!

        • Well, that might be true, what about the Ron Paul people who brought about $5000 of gold and silver through the airport. The federales seized it. Gold and silver is a pain in the ass as well. What’s to stop some cop from taking it as well?

        • bitcoin is a pump and dump besides being a conditioning exercise. I just wish instead of saying “that’s such a stupid thing” when I first heard of it I would have said “I’ll bet $20 on people’s stupidity”. Depending on the cash out time I could have been a millionaire betting on people’s stupidity. At the time I heard of bit coin it was nine cents. So $20 would have bought 222.22 bitcoins. I just never learn to bet on people’s stupidity.

    • As soon as you start moving cash in or out of a bank account, you are on their radar. You are a criminal and you can bet you will have everything confiscated under civil asset forfeiture or some other drug or terrorist law. They have done this. Usually those people are in prison and can’t tell anyone anything. There is probably some sort of gag order they put on you and your case to keep you from getting help and telling anyone. You can bet this a regular thing where they steal large amounts of money and property of anyone trying to avoid the banks. So if you sell your crypto don’t take large amounts of cash, gold, or property. Cash is a big no no. Avoid cash and the Federal Reserve and the IRS. Take gold but don’t exchange it for cash. Property is something else that is monitored. Once you go crypto there is no going back to cash unless its in small amounts. So those that are sitting on large amounts of bitcoin are investing that into start up companies. Bitcoin is then used to pay people to do work. Usually the programmers, researchers, artists, lawyers, ect. Once the foundation of a company is formed its sold off to the very wealthy and they will launder the money as they have the legal means to do so.

      • Hi Thirty Three,

        I hope alternative currencies succeed. I hope anything which enables peaceful people to peacefully go about their business without being mulcted, monitored and and managed (the three Ms of authoritarian collectivism) succeeds…

      • “As soon as you start moving cash in or out of a bank account, you are on their radar. You are a criminal and you can bet you will have everything confiscated under civil asset forfeiture or some other drug or terrorist law.”

        This is an important point which illustrates that the problem is actually far greater than anecdotes of roadside civil forfeiture by uniformed cops.

        ANY money you have in the bank is basically THEIR money. If you withdraw or deposit more than $10,000, it gets reported, and they’ll come sniffing around wondering what you’re doing with the money and if you don’t give a satisfactory answer they’ll seize your account.

        But here’s the kicker: if you do a series of transactions for, say, $9,000, they’ll come after you anyway and charge you “evading the reporting requirement” and seize your account. This is breathtakingly bizarre: it’s like getting a ticket for doing 69 in a 70 because you were trying to avoid getting a ticket for doing 80 in a 70.

        So you can’t win. They can seize money in the bank on a whim, or they can seize cash you’re carrying around on a whim.

        They used to have a term for the condition under which you effectively have no property and no rights and no recourse: slavery.

LEAVE A REPLY