PDA

View Full Version : Banks Say No to Marijuana Money, Legal or Not




CaseyJones
01-12-2014, 11:17 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/us/banks-say-no-to-marijuana-money-legal-or-not.html


In his second-floor office above a hair salon in north Seattle, Ryan Kunkel is seated on a couch placing $1,000 bricks of cash — dozens of them — in a rumpled brown paper bag. When he finishes, he stashes the money in the trunk of his BMW and sets off on an adrenalized drive downtown, darting through traffic and nervously checking to see if anyone is following him.

Despite the air of criminality, there is nothing illicit in what Mr. Kunkel is doing. He co-owns five medical marijuana dispensaries, and on this day he is heading to the Washington State Department of Revenue to commit the ultimate in law-abiding acts: paying taxes. After about 25 minutes at the agency, Mr. Kunkel emerges with a receipt for $51,321.

“Carrying such large amounts of cash is a terrible risk that freaks me out a bit because there is the fear in my mind that the next car pulling up beside me could be the crew that hijacks us,” he said. “So, we have to play this never-ending shell game of different cars, different routes, different dates and different times.”

Legal marijuana merchants like Mr. Kunkel — mainly medical marijuana outlets but also, starting this year, shops that sell recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington — are grappling with a pressing predicament: Their businesses are conducted almost entirely in cash because it is exceedingly difficult for them to open and maintain bank accounts, and thus accept credit cards.

The problem underscores the patchwork nature of federal and state laws that have evolved fitfully as states have legalized some form of marijuana commerce. Though 20 states and the District of Columbia allow either medical or recreational marijuana use — with more likely to follow suit — the drug remains illegal under federal law. The Controlled Substances Act, enacted in 1970 classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the most dangerous category, which also includes heroin, LSD and ecstasy.

As a result, banks, including state-chartered ones, are reluctant to provide traditional services to marijuana businesses. They fear that federal regulators and law enforcement authorities might punish them, with measures like large fines, for violating prohibitions on money-laundering, among other federal laws and regulations.

jonhowe
01-12-2014, 11:35 AM
the most dangerous category, which also includes heroin, LSD and ecstasy.

Sigh. The safest drug on the planet.

Intoxiklown
01-12-2014, 11:54 AM
"As a result, banks, including state-chartered ones, are reluctant to provide traditional services to marijuana businesses. They fear that federal regulators and law enforcement authorities might punish them, with measures like large fines, for violating prohibitions on money-laundering, among other federal laws and regulations."

Honestly, this is exactly what the feds would most likely try. It'd be a way to legally seize funds, citing federal banking laws, all the while pretending to honor state laws.

UtahApocalypse
01-12-2014, 12:00 PM
This seems like the perfect candidate businesses to start using crypto.

Cleaner44
01-12-2014, 12:11 PM
Even without a business account, it would seem that merchants like Mr. Kunkel could still purchase a cashier's check or money order and that would be safer than travelling all over with so much cash. Would a bank refuse to sell him a cashier's check or money order?

Intoxiklown
01-12-2014, 12:14 PM
Even without a business account, it would seem that merchants like Mr. Kunkel could still purchase a cashier's check or money order and that would be safer than travelling all over with so much cash. Would a bank refuse to sell him a cashier's check or money order?

I would think this would fall under laundering laws, as they would know the source as illegal, per federal laws. It's an interesting scenario, to be sure.

HOLLYWOOD
01-12-2014, 12:39 PM
Marijuana Merchants additionally... cannot write-off business expenses or use any of the business/corporate welfare associated with federal tax returns/IRSS garbage etc... How's that for discrimination?

But the "Merchants of Death" like GE(General Electric) write-off everything to an effective tax rate 0% .

coastie
01-12-2014, 01:07 PM
Marijuana Merchants additionally... cannot write-off business expenses or use any of the business/corporate welfare associated with federal tax returns/IRSS garbage etc... How's that for discrimination?

But the "Merchants of Death" like GE(General Electric) write-off everything to an effective tax rate 0% .


'Murica......fuck yeah.

Kotin
01-12-2014, 01:17 PM
this won't last.. with the amount of money involved, its only a matter of time.

Anti Federalist
01-12-2014, 02:14 PM
“Carrying such large amounts of cash is a terrible risk that freaks me out a bit because there is the fear in my mind that the next car pulling up beside me could be the crew that hijacks us,” he said. “So, we have to play this never-ending shell game of different cars, different routes, different dates and different times.”

Here's the crew you'd better be looking for:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Police_car_with_emergency_lights_on.jpg

Intoxiklown
01-12-2014, 02:22 PM
Here's the crew you'd better be looking for:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Police_car_with_emergency_lights_on.jpg



"Sir, I suspect this money is intended for use in buying illegal drugs, and am confiscating it. If you wish to protest, I can always beat your brains out before we part ways."

idiom
01-12-2014, 02:37 PM
I would much rather drive around with $50k in gold. :rolleyes:

FrankRep
01-12-2014, 02:45 PM
Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor (http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims)
Drugs and crime chief says $352bn in criminal proceeds was effectively laundered by financial institutions


The Guardian
12 December 2009

Neil Desmond
01-12-2014, 02:46 PM
Here's the crew you'd better be looking for:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Police_car_with_emergency_lights_on.jpg

Are you being facetious or are you really being serious? I would think someting like a police (or armed private security services, whatever) escort would resolve that issue. For example, banks use the armored vehicle services.

Tod
01-12-2014, 02:58 PM
This will be good for BTC.

Neil Desmond
01-12-2014, 03:04 PM
This will be good for BTC.

LOL! True.

Anti Federalist
01-12-2014, 03:18 PM
Are you being facetious or are you really being serious? I would think someting like a police (or armed private security services, whatever) escort would resolve that issue. For example, banks use the armored vehicle services.

Quite serious.

The list of people that have had cash seized (stolen) by cops is long and dreadful.

And in this case, they would be "legal".

Fifty large?

That's one fifth of a BearCat.

Or 25 decent automatic rifles.

Neil Desmond
01-12-2014, 03:22 PM
Quite serious.

The list of people that have had cash seized (stolen) by cops is long and dreadful.

And in this case, they would be "legal".

Fifty large?

That's one fifth of a BearCat.

Or 25 decent automatic rifles.

Well what's the context here? Are you talking about police corruption, or are you referring to the legal gray area and technicalities?

surf
01-12-2014, 03:34 PM
i'm a former "banker" here in WA. i'm very curious what our legislature can do.

i'd like to start a "cannabis credit union" here - state chartered. the conundrum is that we would need to be able to use the FRB for cash deposits as well as to initiate checking accounts (along with investing all of this cash), unless we merely served as a deposit only institution, in which case we'd need to charge people for keeping their supplies of cash there.

it's a conundrum to say the least.

just for the hell of it, I think i'll contact the majority leader (my Rep, I believe) and see if he's up for pushing some sort of legislation that would allow a state-chartered credit union to take deposits from the industry. I know he thought the marijuana laws were ridiculous.

Anti Federalist
01-12-2014, 03:41 PM
Well what's the context here? Are you talking about police corruption, or are you referring to the legal gray area and technicalities?

The person in the OP is worried about getting "jacked" by a crew.

I'm suggesting he is in just as great a danger of having his money jacked "legally" by cops using asset forfeiture laws.

Not even a question of a bribe or kick back, they will take your money from you.

Working Poor
01-12-2014, 06:20 PM
"As a result, banks, including state-chartered ones, are reluctant to provide traditional services to marijuana businesses. They fear that federal regulators and law enforcement authorities might punish them, with measures like large fines, for violating prohibitions on money-laundering, among other federal laws and regulations."

Honestly, this is exactly what the feds would most likely try. It'd be a way to legally seize funds, citing federal banking laws, all the while pretending to honor state laws.

I guess they forgot that cocaine bailed out wall st. in the 80's

Neil Desmond
01-12-2014, 06:25 PM
The person in the OP is worried about getting "jacked" by a crew.

I'm suggesting he is in just as great a danger of having his money jacked "legally" by cops using asset forfeiture laws.

Not even a question of a bribe or kick back, they will take your money from you.

I understand the part about getting "jacked" by a crew, but how does the asset forfeiture argument not contradict the premise that it's not illicit? Either it's not illicit, or they cannot use asset forfeiture laws - it can't be both; right? Am I missing something?

Czolgosz
01-12-2014, 06:25 PM
People are afraid of their government.

Tod
01-12-2014, 07:07 PM
I understand the part about getting "jacked" by a crew, but how does the asset forfeiture argument not contradict the premise that it's not illicit? Either it's not illicit, or they cannot use asset forfeiture laws - it can't be both; right? Am I missing something?


Even if they are forced by a judge to return it, it will be a LONG time before the person sees it again. Witness the stripper driving with a million bucks recently. And here is an article:

http://jalopnik.com/5913416/cops-can-confiscate-money-and-property-from-law-abiding-citizens

Neil Desmond
01-12-2014, 07:23 PM
Even if they are forced by a judge to return it, it will be a LONG time before the person sees it again. Witness the stripper driving with a million bucks recently. And here is an article:

http://jalopnik.com/5913416/cops-can-confiscate-money-and-property-from-law-abiding-citizens

In that case it looks like we have anarchy. We have anarchy when the government is no longer functional. The goverment is no longer functional when our constitutional rights are being ignored. Our constitutional rights are being ignored when there can be deprivation of property without due process of law or when we're not being presumed to be innocent until being found guilty by a jury of our peers. What you're pointing out here is that people have both been deprived of property without due process of law and are basically being presumed of being guilty.

JK/SEA
01-12-2014, 07:50 PM
this won't last.. with the amount of money involved, its only a matter of time.

i agree. This is all new. Big money has a habit of getting attention.

Origanalist
01-12-2014, 08:01 PM
In that case it looks like we have anarchy. We have anarchy when the government is no longer functional. The goverment is no longer functional when our constitutional rights are being ignored. Our constitutional rights are being ignored when there can be deprivation of property without due process of law or when we're not being presumed to be innocent until being found guilty by a jury of our peers. What you're pointing out here is that people have both been deprived of property without due process of law and are basically being presumed of being guilty.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Tod
01-12-2014, 08:05 PM
In that case it looks like we have anarchy. We have anarchy when the government is no longer functional. The goverment is no longer functional when our constitutional rights are being ignored. Our constitutional rights are being ignored when there can be deprivation of property without due process of law or when we're not being presumed to be innocent until being found guilty by a jury of our peers. What you're pointing out here is that people have both been deprived of property without due process of law and are basically being presumed of being guilty.


*sigh* Are people never going to stop using the word "anarchy" when what they mean is "chaos" or "tyranny"?

angelatc
01-12-2014, 08:13 PM
Marijuana Merchants additionally... cannot write-off business expenses or use any of the business/corporate welfare associated with federal tax returns/IRSS garbage etc... How's that for discrimination?

But the "Merchants of Death" like GE(General Electric) write-off everything to an effective tax rate 0% .

Liberal hogwash - the lies that just won't die. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/04/the-truth-about-ges-tax-bill/

angelatc
01-12-2014, 08:17 PM
this won't last.. with the amount of money involved, its only a matter of time.


YOu'd think, but I don't know what the answer is. As long as the feds can seize bank accounts electronically, there's not much point in finding a bank. Even spending the money to purchase assets would be risky because they will seize those too.

With the amount of money involved it's only a matter of time.

Neil Desmond
01-12-2014, 08:22 PM
*sigh* Are people never going to stop using the word "anarchy" when what they mean is "chaos" or "tyranny"?

Anarchy is what best fits. It's not necessarily chaos because what's happening here involves a methodically corrupted system. Tyranny implies recognition of such a system as legitimate; how can a situation that involves a government that isn't functioning be a legitimate government?

pcosmar
01-12-2014, 08:23 PM
Well what's the context here? Are you talking about police corruption, or are you referring to the legal gray area and technicalities?
Asset forfeiture.. otherwise known as Highway Robbery.

nobody's_hero
01-12-2014, 08:55 PM
this won't last.. with the amount of money involved, its only a matter of time.

Banks don't need depositors anyway. Now they just get all the money they want from the Lender of Last First resort and pay their depositors shitty 0.00000000000000000000000002% interest annually.

surf
01-12-2014, 09:02 PM
Banks don't need depositors anyway. Now they just get all the money they want from the Lender of Last First resort and pay their depositors shitty 0.00000000000000000000000002% interest annually.
bingo. and that is why it is so amazing these banks all got so screwed up (how can you go tits up w/a zero cost of funds?)

Anti Federalist
01-12-2014, 09:06 PM
In that case it looks like we have anarchy. We have anarchy when the government is no longer functional. The goverment is no longer functional when our constitutional rights are being ignored. Our constitutional rights are being ignored when there can be deprivation of property without due process of law or when we're not being presumed to be innocent until being found guilty by a jury of our peers. What you're pointing out here is that people have both been deprived of property without due process of law and are basically being presumed of being guilty.

Is it possible you were not aware of the fact that hundreds, perhaps thousands of times every day, people's property is taken from them under asset forfeiture laws, in many cases with no arrest or charge made whatsoever?

Mani
01-12-2014, 10:44 PM
Anarchy is what best fits. It's not necessarily chaos because what's happening here involves a methodically corrupted system. Tyranny implies recognition of such a system as legitimate; how can a situation that involves a government that isn't functioning be a legitimate government?


I would say Tyranny, because this is not a one time deal, but this is a well oiled machine happening all over the country. There are hundreds of examples of this kind of "LEGAL" asset forfeiture. On this forum it's been discussed before, and there are a couple of good videos that have news coverage showing example after example after example. And it is a profit making scheme as even if the gov't takes 50K in a legal means, the innocent business owner must fight for 1-2 years to get it back, and besides court costs and legal fees to get the money back, eventually they have to pay some fees of a couple percent to have the money returned. So either the gov't keeps all of it (innocent business owner gives up), or some of it, or a small commission for those that fight the system all the way to get their money back.

It's pure profit and it's functioning well, in favor of the government.

Tod
01-12-2014, 11:08 PM
Anarchy is what best fits. It's not necessarily chaos because what's happening here involves a methodically corrupted system. Tyranny implies recognition of such a system as legitimate; how can a situation that involves a government that isn't functioning be a legitimate government?

The problem I have with it is that it puts a bad spin on what should be a pretty neutral word, while something like tyranny already carries the connotation. Whether you consider the government legitimate is kind of besides the point: they ARE the ones in power and DO rule us through threat of violence.

Neil Desmond
01-12-2014, 11:13 PM
Is it possible you were not aware of the fact that hundreds, perhaps thousands of times every day, people's property is taken from them under asset forfeiture laws, in many cases with no arrest or charge made whatsoever?
Sure - that is possible. Many things are possible.

Neil Desmond
01-12-2014, 11:22 PM
I would say Tyranny, because this is not a one time deal, but this is a well oiled machine happening all over the country. There are hundreds of examples of this kind of "LEGAL" asset forfeiture. On this forum it's been discussed before, and there are a couple of good videos that have news coverage showing example after example after example. And it is a profit making scheme as even if the gov't takes 50K in a legal means, the innocent business owner must fight for 1-2 years to get it back, and besides court costs and legal fees to get the money back, eventually they have to pay some fees of a couple percent to have the money returned. So either the gov't keeps all of it (innocent business owner gives up), or some of it, or a small commission for those that fight the system all the way to get their money back.

It's pure profit and it's functioning well, in favor of the government.
It doesn't matter how long it has been going on or how many times a month, week, or day it happens; none of that makes it ok. One could say 2 + 2 = 5 for decades or dozens of times a minute, it's always wrong and people need to start to notice or they're going to find things deteriorating in society.

Neil Desmond
01-12-2014, 11:40 PM
The problem I have with it is that it puts a bad spin on what should be a pretty neutral word, while something like tyranny already carries the connotation.
Well I don't know about that. I think it's merely an observation, and sometimes it's spin to claim that something is spin. Sometimes reality is unpleasant and disappointing.


Whether you consider the government legitimate is kind of besides the point: they ARE the ones in power and DO rule us through threat of violence.
I think it becomes "us vs. them" if the government isn't functioning legitimately.

Origanalist
01-12-2014, 11:49 PM
Well I don't know about that. I think it's merely an observation, and sometimes it's spin to claim that something is spin. Sometimes reality is unpleasant and disappointing.


I think it becomes "us vs. them" if the government isn't functioning legitimately.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but you seem to have missed the fact that we already passed that point.

Mani
01-12-2014, 11:50 PM
It doesn't matter how long it has been going on or how many times a month, week, or day it happens; none of that makes it ok. One could say 2 + 2 = 5 for decades or dozens of times a minute, it's always wrong and people need to start to notice or they're going to find things deteriorating in society.

Definitely not OK. But the gov't is getting away with it, again and again and again as if it is perfectly OK for them. Who's going to stop them? The gov't will not fix itself when it's making a profit like that.

Neil Desmond
01-13-2014, 12:01 AM
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but you seem to have missed the fact that we already passed that point.

I understand what you mean, but the thing is that I have not witnessed, observed, or experienced this myself. I basically have no knowledge aside from being told it's happening. I'm not trying to deny that it's happening; I have very little (if any) doubt that it does occur, just like it's being presented. But, I can only speak to the validity of the situation; I can't say that it's fact.

Neil Desmond
01-13-2014, 12:10 AM
Definitely not OK. But the gov't is getting away with it, again and again and again as if it is perfectly OK for them. Who's going to stop them? The gov't will not fix itself when it's making a profit like that.
I'm sure it won't be easy to stop them as long as there's scarcity, but I also don't think it's impossible to put a stop to them. It's a matter of how. The way to do that is to get defenders of liberty elected to office and throw the undesirables in the woods.

Anti Federalist
01-13-2014, 12:48 AM
Sure - that is possible. Many things are possible.

No, not possible, is.

The forfeitures are a matter of public record.

There's no denying that this is happening to people every day.

Keith and stuff
01-13-2014, 01:04 AM
Are you being facetious or are you really being serious? I would think someting like a police (or armed private security services, whatever) escort would resolve that issue. For example, banks use the armored vehicle services.

Police often steal legal cash for fun. Often times, they don't return it, unless they are sued and lose.

Mani
01-13-2014, 02:16 AM
I hadn't heard of the story you guys mentioned about the stripper and million dollars, here it is in case anyone else is wondering:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-orders-cops-return-stripper-1-million-article-1.1407412

Judge orders cops to return stripper’s $1 million IN CASH taken during traffic stop
Former dancer Tara Mishra, 33, lost part of her life savings when cops confiscated it from her business partners during a traffic stop, suspecting it was drug money.

(I like how one commenter says, Strippers can't earn a million dollars! That's impossible! It's drug money!!!!)

Why can't strippers earn a million dollars? And over a 15 year period that's only 66K per year savings. She could easily be double or triple that earnings per year and saving the rest, it's hardly impossible.


(Here's another article about "Police for Profit" as it's called.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bullock/end-policing-for-profit_b_534553.html

Mani
01-13-2014, 02:32 AM
I read the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/assets_08-19.html

JEFFREY BROWN: Next: a story about the increase in police seizures of personal property, in the name of fighting crime.

Ray Suarez has our look.

It's called civil forfeiture. The seizures have long been a tool in the fight against illegal drugs. And the program is an enormous moneymaker for local police departments.

New Yorker staff writer Sarah Stillman wrote a lengthy and revealing report for the magazine, and joins me now.

And, Sarah, let's start at the beginning.

What is civil forfeiture? How does it work?

SARAH STILLMAN, The New Yorker: Well, most people are familiar with this idea of criminal forfeiture.

And that's a widely supported notion that, if you're profiting from crime -- let's say you're a big drug kingpin -- and you have bought your Malibu mansion and your Gulfstream jet with the proceeds of your crime, then those things will be taken away from you. And that make a lot of sense again to people.

But many folks are unfamiliar with the idea of civil forfeiture, which is actually a case brought against, directly against a piece a property, where you don't need to be proven guilty of a crime for your goods to be taken away. And many of the conventional protections that you have under the criminal process are not afforded to you in a civil forfeiture case.

RAY SUAREZ: So, there's no trial. There's no requirement to provide evidence to prove the state's suspicion. They just take your stuff.

SARAH STILLMAN: Exactly.

And you don't even have the right to a lawyer. So, conventionally, if you're facing the loss of your home or the loss of your car or cash, normally, at the very least, you would have someone who is able to represent you in these claims.

In places like Washington, D.C., you have to even pay $2,500 simply for the right to contest the case. And you're, again, not entitled to representation when you do that. So it can be a very costly process and also just a very confusing, arduous process to figure out, how do you contest?

RAY SUAREZ: People are probably sitting at home and saying, but how could this happen? Doesn't the Constitution forbid the government seizing your property without due process?

SARAH STILLMAN: Right.

And there are a lot of constitutional arguments that have been -- that have gone on around this issue. And people have argued, for instance, the Eighth Amendment protects against excessive fees -- or excessive fines for things like a case I looked at in Philadelphia where a family lost their home, a couple, an elderly couple.

The man was struggling with cancer. And it was found that his son had allegedly sold $20 worth of pot on the porch to a confidential informant. And the son has still not actually been convicted of any crime, but yet the parents, the homeowners are facing the potential loss of their home.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, people probably remember, probably recall seeing news conferences where very proud local law enforcement show off cars, show off boats, show off houses, the things that they have gotten as the fruits of investigations.

When did this become a common tool in use by police departments across the country?

SARAH STILLMAN: Well, it's interesting, because, actually, civil forfeiture has its origins at the very, very beginning of our country, when they needed a way to go after pirates who had these vessels that the owner may be all the way in Europe, so let's just go after the ship if we can't get the guy who owns the ship, which made sense.

But it really fell by the wayside pretty soon thereafter. And not until the one drugs took off in the '80s in kind of the Reagan years did it become common for police -- legislation was written that allowed police to actually in many cases keep the proceeds that they got, (The war on drugs. The worst fail of all time in our country - Mani). the things you mentioned, and actually use them, funnel them back into crime fighting.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, your report indicated that it's pretty hard if you're caught in this, if you're a citizen who has been stopped by a county sheriff or something, to fight back, to get your property, your cash back from a law enforcement agency.

SARAH STILLMAN: Yes.

And I think one thing that is important to emphasize is that these laws vary tremendously from state to state, so, in many places, again, with things like not being entitled to a lawyer and also with the idea that often you have maybe 20 days to contest or 30 days to contest. And if you can't figure out how to do so in that time period, your goods are automatically seized.

So many people lose them simply by default.

RAY SUAREZ: So, the clock is ticking from the moment they find cash in your glove compartment or a TV in your trunk. And often these are, your reporting indicates, either poor or working-class people with no access to attorneys, under-banked or unbanked. They're not people who know how to sophisticatedly work the system.

SARAH STILLMAN: Yes.

That was a big sort of surprise for me looking at this, is that these laws were really created, again, to go after kingpins or mafia people or Wall Street con men who, in those cases, you're able to actually take the proceeds of crime and give them in some cases back to victims, which is again a very kind of appealing idea.

Instead, often, I was seeing cases of like very petty drug crimes or cases where people were actually proven to have committed any crime at all, but simply had cash that they claimed was going to maybe buy a used car or they were paid in cash for whatever reason, and simply were pulled over on the side of the street , in some cases were even told -- in a case I mentioned in Tenaha, Tx., the main case I write about in The New Yorker, they were actually told -- some couples were told, we will either let you -- we will either take your money and you can go on down the road if you sign away your rights to it, or we will press money laundering charges and take your kids away from you and put them into child protective services. ("We are taking this cash, or we are going to throw you in jail and take away your kids...Your choice." - Says the officer friendly. )

RAY SUAREZ: Has anybody successfully fought back against the seizure of their property without trial and without due process?

SARAH STILLMAN: Absolutely.

And that -- one of the surprising things is actually that when people did get it together to push back, often, the cases were just dropped. And it sort of indicated this was really often preying upon people who didn't know how to fight back or didn't have the resources to or had reasons to be scared to.

And in cases where people really did bring a case, including in Tenaha after this happened to hundreds -- perhaps even 1,000 were stopped in this drug interdiction program there -- it's a very small town. It's mostly people who were driving through in rental cars from out of state. They actually brought a successful -- or they had a settlement in class action lawsuit recently.

RAY SUAREZ: A very interesting read.

Sarah Stillman from The New Yorker, thanks a lot.

SARAH STILLMAN: Thanks for having me on the show.

Mani
01-13-2014, 02:52 AM
Sorry to sidetrack this thread, but it does go back to the point. The legal owner of the business with tons of cash cannot have a bank account and also has a risk to carry and transport cash, for 2 types of gangs will be looking for him, the underground gangs or the badged uniformed gangs in blue.


Both are blood thirsty and trigger happy.

Peace Piper
01-13-2014, 05:25 AM
No one could have possibly predicted that banks wouldn't take cannabis cash (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397774-Obama-administration-DOJ-considering-how-to-crack-down-on-states-that-legalized-marijuana&p=4764470&viewfull=1#post4764470)

tod evans
01-13-2014, 05:53 AM
Sounds like a business opportunity...

An armored car service using the MRAPC's that are for sale for a couple of grand...Seems I remember some directive from way back when that the GSA was required by law to take high bid on their surplus.

There's plenty of old vets who'd be delighted to staff such an endeavor especially if they're paid in cash..

pcosmar
01-13-2014, 08:41 AM
Sounds like a business opportunity...

An armored car service using the MRAPC's that are for sale for a couple of grand...Seems I remember some directive from way back when that the GSA was required by law to take high bid on their surplus.

There's plenty of old vets who'd be delighted to staff such an endeavor especially if they're paid in cash..

Was my thinking. And an opportunity for a Private Bank.

Are there any Surplus Misled Silos that could store assets? A crew of well armed security and a secure location.

Seems that could be profitable. Though it may be expensive to start.

Maybe as a Co-Op for businesses affected.

PaulConventionWV
01-13-2014, 08:57 AM
Are you being facetious or are you really being serious? I would think someting like a police (or armed private security services, whatever) escort would resolve that issue. For example, banks use the armored vehicle services.

lol

You haven't been around here much, have you?

Because if you had been, then you would know that the police, more often than not, will "confiscate" large amounts of cash they find and most likely never fully give it back. I don't even think you could get a police escort for that. If they stopped you and found your cash, though, you better believe they're gonna take it one way or another.

PaulConventionWV
01-13-2014, 09:03 AM
I understand the part about getting "jacked" by a crew, but how does the asset forfeiture argument not contradict the premise that it's not illicit? Either it's not illicit, or they cannot use asset forfeiture laws - it can't be both; right? Am I missing something?

These days, ANY large amounts of cash can be taken under the premise of asset forfeiture laws. It doesn't even matter if it's not illicit because they often take years to figure that out for some unknown reason, and you rarely, if ever, get all of your money back. Figuring out what's illicit and what's not is not a quick one-and-done process. In fact, most of the people who have their money taken will most likely never see it again.

PaulConventionWV
01-13-2014, 09:18 AM
In that case it looks like we have anarchy. We have anarchy when the government is no longer functional. The goverment is no longer functional when our constitutional rights are being ignored. Our constitutional rights are being ignored when there can be deprivation of property without due process of law or when we're not being presumed to be innocent until being found guilty by a jury of our peers. What you're pointing out here is that people have both been deprived of property without due process of law and are basically being presumed of being guilty.

You make a good point, but I don't know if I would call it anarchy. It's very craftily built into the system, and the government is stronger than ever because of it. Just because the Constitution and due process have become obsolete, that doesn't mean government has.

This type of thing happens all of the time. Presumption of guilt is the norm now, not the exception. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and sometimes not even then can they be made whole. It just depends on the needs of the particular governing body you are up against whether or not you will be totally screwed. We are living in a society with chaotic law enforcement that simply cannot be brought under control. Among the most egregious abuses that have become common, though, are asset forfeiture laws. There are several laws that seem to defy all constitutional rationalization, and this is one of them.

PaulConventionWV
01-13-2014, 09:29 AM
It doesn't matter how long it has been going on or how many times a month, week, or day it happens; none of that makes it ok. One could say 2 + 2 = 5 for decades or dozens of times a minute, it's always wrong and people need to start to notice or they're going to find things deteriorating in society.

For the love of God, are you trying to say it's anarchy because it's not strictly Constitutional? What is with all these semantics? Anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of "legitimate" government (whatever that might be). I doubt most people in feudal times recognized their government as legitimate, and yet tyrannical dictators were quite common. Call it tyranny or call it a crazy psycho oppressive government. It doesn't matter. It is not anarchy just because it doesn't fit some definition of a certain system of government. It is still government and it is still here to oppress you.

PaulConventionWV
01-13-2014, 09:32 AM
I'm sure it won't be easy to stop them as long as there's scarcity, but I also don't think it's impossible to put a stop to them. It's a matter of how. The way to do that is to get defenders of liberty elected to office and throw the undesirables in the woods.

Do you think the government hasn't thought this through? The election system is also rigged in their favor. If the enforcement branch of government can behave with disregard to the law, then that's a sign that the election system has prevented people from infiltrating the system effectively. I sincerely doubt that any election is going to change this now. And if there ever were an election that would change it, they would make sure that election would happen in their favor.

tod evans
01-13-2014, 09:47 AM
Do you think the government hasn't thought this through? The election system is also rigged in their favor. If the enforcement branch of government can behave with disregard to the law, then that's a sign that the election system has prevented people from infiltrating the system effectively. I sincerely doubt that any election is going to change this now. And if there ever were an election that would change it, they would make sure that election would happen in their favor.

You're worrying about elections when a simple 200 man private security force could repel the feds from an armored transport..

The feds could detain it/them of course but by the time they did there'd be others involved and they wouldn't have their hands on the money.

If the idea is to move cash unmolested by feds I think it can be done successfully.

The very last thing the feds want is their draconian methods publicized across the world with citizens standing in defense of the laws they passed...

I don't believe they're ready to tip their hand yet...

oyarde
01-13-2014, 12:10 PM
YOu'd think, but I don't know what the answer is. As long as the feds can seize bank accounts electronically, there's not much point in finding a bank. Even spending the money to purchase assets would be risky because they will seize those too.

With the amount of money involved it's only a matter of time. Pretty much , you could buy gold and stash it in a different country, buy assets in other peoples names , buy non traceable assets thats about it .........