Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 130 posts

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#101

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

energy123 wrote: post #92
BirAdam wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Category error. Federal departments are changes to the structure and function of government that should require Consitutional Amendments. The imbibing of Diet Coke by the POTUS is not substantial to the structure and function of government.

Where in the Constitution does it say that federal departments require Constitutional Amendments? As far as I am aware, the Constitution says nothing about either that or Diet Coke.

  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I get the point you're trying to make that this seems to suggest that drinking Diet Coke is something also not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" but I think people who disagree consider that drinking Diet Coke is not a "power" in the same way that operating the FBI is.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#102

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

The article conveniently leaves out USPV was a major money laundering and drug distrbution point and all the contents were seized by warrant in the furtherance of the investigation.

It appears the owners are cooperating with the FBI and the org plead out.

https://beverlypress.com/2022/03/beverly-hills-private-vault...

The original district court ruling upheld the FBI's proceures and it wasn't until 2024 that the 9th Ciruit reversed (some) of that ruling.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-sides-with-fbi-in-86m-bever...

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/115736960.h...

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#103

Post by hiatus »

UncleEntity wrote: post #78
hiatus wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would enforce federal laws if there were no federal law enforcement agencies?

The states? In the early days of the U.S., the first federal criminal code, the Crimes Act of 1790, enumerated 23 federal offenses and established punishments for each.

The states can't be compelled to enforce federal laws though can they? Isn't that how like sanctuary cities work? Or how weed is legal in some states but illegal federally? States can decline to assist federal law enforcement.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#104

Post by lupusreal »

hiatus wrote: post #103
UncleEntity wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The states? In the early days of the U.S., the first federal criminal code, the Crimes Act of 1790, enumerated 23 federal offenses and established punishments for each.

The states can't be compelled to enforce federal laws though can they? Isn't that how like sanctuary cities work? Or how weed is legal in some states but illegal federally? States can decline to assist federal law enforcement.

They can if they want to, but can't be compelled to do so. If a state decides that a federal law won't be enforced by them, then it shouldn't be enforced in that state period. Federal law enforcement are worse than the gangsters they were created to fight.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#105

Post by mapt »

etblg wrote: post #99
sidewndr46 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me remind you that the judge in that scandal is a free man thanks to the President of the United States.

And strangely enough, by the last President! Not even this fresh new one that we expect all the bizarre pardons from. That one was a Joe Biden classic.

Say what you want about "Nonviolent offender leniency", but occasionally nonviolent offenses are quantitatively and qualitatively more despicable than most violent offenses.

Killed a rival gang member? That's one thing. Improperly sent thousands of children to prison under color of authority, jeopardizing the legitimacy of the justice system in the process? I think that's one of those things that should be a hanging offense.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#106

Post by bb88 »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #102

The article conveniently leaves out USPV was a major money laundering and drug distrbution point and all the contents were seized by warrant in the furtherance of the investigation. It appears the owners are cooperating with the FBI and the org plead out. https://beverlypress.com/2022/03/beverly-hills-private-vault... The original district court ruling upheld the FBI's proceures and it wasn't until 2024 that the 9th…

A major nitpick here. The contents of the safe deposit boxes were seized __without__ warrant -- which the warrant did not include. Once they had her money the FBI argued it was civil asset forfeiture.

USPV may have been a criminal organization, but if you enter into a contract with such a group, typically you wouldn't know it's a criminal organization.

I guess you could call up the FBI and say, "Hey I'm going to open a safe deposit box account with USPV. Are you guys actively investigating them?" And if you do that, they will probably not answer you if there is an ongoing criminal investigation.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#107

Post by _heimdall »

usefulcat wrote: post #96
_heimdall wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that's why, though the government would then have an incentive to seize as much as it can legally seize. It'd be one thing if the bitcoin was just thrown in a hole or destroyed. A strategic reserve is a financial asset though, the government will want to grow that fund to help fund pet projects while running a ridiculous deficit.

The government effectively prints money at will; it doesn't need bitcoin. This is an attempt by the current administration to curry favor with people who like bitcoin.

today the government prints money at will, that can change. They will be creating a new federal power with a strategic reserve, it will get abused eventually.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#108

Post by h2zizzle »

Izkata wrote: post #95
h2zizzle wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tea Party was like Gamergate in that it was ostensibly about [overtaxation|ethics in gaming journalism], but was actually driven by [sexism against female games journalists|racism against President Obama], and swiftly co-opted by [the conservative establishment|the conservative establishment] as the right face of the post-OWS idpol wedge. (It would be foolish to think that the divided state of this country was a…

That narrative was created by the journalists Gamergate was against, to deflect against their criticisms. It was never actually true.

And THAT narrative was created by Gamergater grifters. IT was even less true than whatever you might find flawed in GP.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#109

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

bb88 wrote: post #106
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #102

The article conveniently leaves out USPV was a major money laundering and drug distrbution point and all the contents were seized by warrant in the furtherance of the investigation. It appears the owners are cooperating with the FBI and the org plead out. https://beverlypress.com/2022/03/beverly-hills-private-vault... The original district court ruling upheld the FBI's proceures and it wasn't until 2024 that the 9th…

A major nitpick here. The contents of the safe deposit boxes were seized __without__ warrant -- which the warrant did not include. Once they had her money the FBI argued it was civil asset forfeiture. USPV may have been a criminal organization, but if you enter into a contract with such a group, typically you wouldn't know it's a criminal organization. I guess you could call up the FBI and say, "Hey I'm going to open…

Oh there's lots of nits to pick on this case and the 9th Circuit dug into some of it.

The original warrant stated that it was for "inventorying" the contents for the purposes of an investigation (preserving evidence). They grossly exceeded the scope fo the warrant and now have to deal with 17 lawsuits if I remember correctly.

I abhor civil asset forfeiture as it is set up today. I remember all the fights over it in 1980s over the drug lords, but it had a lot of public support back then and it still does to some extent.

Personal anecdote: I almost had several thousand in cash seized on I-70 in Ohio. It's legal but grey and it happens. Good luck getting your cash back. Only thing that saved my money (actually my grandfathers estate... I was selling his vintage stereo gear in Kentucky) was me being white, not sketchy, and being active military. But only barely. There may or may not been a $100 that got miscounted.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#110

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

UncleEntity wrote: post #70
wjnc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've listened to a series of podcasts (More Perfect) where it became clear to me that in the US to get lawsuits go all the way to the Supreme Court, you need both a case (de jure) and a plaintiff that is marketable. This is not a diss on Linda Martin. Going forward with this case in a attempt to get civil forfeiture more constrained after getting your money back is heroic. Just saying that the US legal system needs h…

That's the Institute of Justice's jam, they have whole teams chipping away at things like this and qualified immunity -- pro bono as an added bonus.

Yeah they are all over it... https://ij.org/case/u-s-private-vaults-seizure/u-s-private-v...
Post reply on HN