Beware your government - they may take your airplane

hopmedic said:
I work for a bank, and the laws are very specific as to watching for deposits that are just under the limits. I'm one of those poor saps who has to have the training even though he doesn't deal with customers, so I don't keep it at the front of my mind, but I do know that they train not just to watch for that magic number, but to keep an eye on figures just under it as well. And when we make that report to the government, we are not allowed to tell the customer. Other than that, I don't remember much of it at the moment.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall the branch folk are supposed to ask questions if there are regular deposits just under the $10K limit. I could be wrong, I generally retain that knowledge just long enough to test through the compliance training. :rolleyes2:
 
DaleB said:
I seem to recall the branch folk are supposed to ask questions if there are regular deposits just under the $10K limit. I could be wrong, I generally retain that knowledge just long enough to test through the compliance training. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
That could be... I might be thinking of how you're not allowed to tell the customer if the government is investigating them. Who knows? I'm like you - sit at the computer, breeze through the training, and hope for an 80% at the end. :nono:
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Oh - they can take away a lot more than just your airplane. A determined prosecutor unwilling to admit a mistake can take a way your kids, and lock you up for extended periods even if there never was a crime in the first place.

(Admitting an error would be "Flip-flopping", now wouldn't it...)

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/michig...ecutors-police/story?id=15299991#.T8fZK8WwUzS
Click to expand...


Don't forget the duke lacrosse prosecutor, Nifong. He should be rotting in jail. Unfortunately he spent only one day.
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
In order for the feds to even know about it, they had to have been reported by their bank. If their bank didn't first talk to them to find out why they were making those deposits, or to advise them of the need to fill out the form if needed, then they weren't doing their job. I believe there is required recurrent annual training on this kind of stuff for all bank employees, even the ones who never see customers.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of people who mistakenly believe that banks only report transactions above $10,000 because they know that banks are REQUIRED to report those transactions. Usually, your bank starts reporting at the $5,000 level or even below. It is not illegal for them to make that report. It is only illegal if they don't make the report of larger transactions. Oh, and the reporting is also not limited to CASH transactions.

BTW, I never took the training. I just wrote the program. (Dodges rotten tomatoes and bullets):yikes:
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
In order for the feds to even know about it, they had to have been reported by their bank. If their bank didn't first talk to them to find out why they were making those deposits, or to advise them of the need to fill out the form if needed, then they weren't doing their job. I believe there is required recurrent annual training on this kind of stuff for all bank employees, even the ones who never see customers.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the bank employees are required to talk to the customers. The only actual requirement I believe they have is to report it. That said, it's probably not good business practice to not talk to customers.

The other option, potentially, is that this was discovered in a bank audit.
 
> keep an eye on figures just under it as well.

Sometimes, well under the $10k reporting requirement. Eliot Spitzer was
tripped-up by a $7k transfer to his pimp.

Heck, the FBI recently issued a flyers to 25 types of businesses, telling
them that customers paying with cash should be considered suspicious and
reported. What businesses? Coffee shops, hardware stores .... geeesh.
 
Last edited:
raider said:
i'd be looking into finding a target for a case of malicious / wrongful prosecution - starting with whomever gave the ICE the obvious reason for probable cause.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl: I've not seen a lawyer yet who would take a retainer for malicious prosecution on one of these, it's too tough of a case to make. The trick is proving that it's malice and not vapid stupidity which is much easier for them to show. Since the burden of proof is on you to prove that it wasn't stupidity, it becomes nearly impossible without some communication of intent in evidence.
 
What Henning said.

It is practically impossible to win a malicious prosecution suit against a prosecutor. He is protected by legal doctrines and for good reason. If he wasn't then he would be afraid to do his job for fear of legal retribution.

If we got rid of the doctrines then convicts and their army of law school C students would clog the court system with lottery lawsuits.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
You have due process. The problem is one of unequal access the the legal system. The government controls the law and decides what it is or not subject to. You are then forced to pay thousands of dollars (to an attorney and the legal system) to protect your "contitutionally guaranteed rights".
Click to expand...

While the government utilizes loans against your money you send them to pay their attorneys.
 
Spike, does this guy have a legal defense fund started? I'd like to kick him a few bucks, if you think it would help?
 
Dunno, I'll ask him. It has been devastating.
 
SCCutler said:
Dunno, I'll ask him. It has been devastating.
Click to expand...

You know he will be too proud to take the money.

You take it, Spike, and knock it off his bill. If you are pro bono then donote it down the line.

Money seems to be the only thing talking anymore. Sigh.
 
Sorry if i was unclear; I am not representing him in the forfeiture - I am not at all qualified in that area!
 
SCCutler said:
Sorry if i was unclear; I am not representing him in the forfeiture - I am not at all qualified in that area!
Click to expand...

Spike,

You are making it difficult for us to line your pockets. That's a good thing.

Love you, bro. :thumbsup:
 
Threefingeredjack said:
any organization, once established subverts its original purpose to self preservation. I offer our "War on Drugs" as a prime example,
Click to expand...


Bingo. So we have a myriad of agencies with people paid for by our tax dollars, using a myriad of products paid for by our tax dollars to do things we never dreamed or imagined. All in the name of anti-drugs, and anti-terror.

Mostly what it accomplishes is the ability to spy on the innocent while waisting precious resources. Our resources, which boils down to our time, and our lives.
 
> ... the "surveillance society" has the capability to monitor and record everything you
> do. Any electronic communication, even a cellphone that's turned on but not in use

Correct. The typical smartphone provides the carrier with its location ~1/minute.
That's at least 15 billion geolocation pings/day in CONUS from just Sprint and Verizon.
The high(er) estimate is almost 600 billion geoloc pings/day.

H.R. 2168 may shutdown some of the geolocation efforts of Sprint & Verizon - who
are already selling your (pseudonymized) travel and location info.
 
rainsux said:
> ... the "surveillance society" has the capability to monitor and record everything you
> do. Any electronic communication, even a cellphone that's turned on but not in use

Correct. The typical smartphone provides the carrier with its location ~1/minute.
That's at least 15 billion geolocation pings/day in CONUS from just Sprint and Verizon.
The high(er) estimate is almost 600 billion geoloc pings/day.

H.R. 2168 may shutdown some of the geolocation efforts of Sprint & Verizon - who
are already selling your (pseudonymized) travel and location info.
Click to expand...

With that info fed into the UAV's that they want to operate we arson a complete police state.
 
The "war on drugs" has never been subverted, it was a money grab from day one working exactly as planned. Remember in the early years of Clinton the Madison Guarantee issue where everybody that was going to testify before congress ended up dead beforehand? The question there was where the bank got the money. The answer was "cocaine coming into Mena." At the end of eight years, 2 special prosecutors, millions of dollars in investigation and billions of dollars of government time wasted while they did nothing except shout 'scandle scandle scandle' all to come up with a blow job, a cigar and a jiz stain on a dress.
 
Last edited:
Give the man his damn airplane back!
He has been declared innocent of all charges!
This is CRAZY!!
 
I'll be the first to admit that they spy on good and bad guys equally.

Look up how many metric tons of dollars we pay the Aussies to keep Alice Springs running sometime. Can't just spy in the Northern Hemisphere, you know.

The entire town wouldn't exist if it weren't for NSA money. And crap-tons of it.
 
This just in - after 6 1/2 hours deliberation, the jury has awarded the plane to its rightful owner!

It is not "justice," but the injustice has at least been abated.
 
Two good things:
1. He got his plane back
2. Favorable legal precedent

Other than that, not much good came of this mess.

SCCutler said:
This just in - after 6 1/2 hours deliberation, the jury has awarded the plane to its rightful owner!

It is not "justice," but the injustice has at least been abated.
Click to expand...
 
The Justice department should have discussed this case with the FAA...
The FAA lawyers are smart enough to drop prosecution - even right in the middle of a trial - when they sense they are losing..

This is actually a major win for GA... There will be repercussions at Justice and questions of who was the genius that got a precedent verdict set against them... Justice has been rocked in the past few years with major losses and Judges scolding Justice from the bench... This trial would have been overlooked at Justice were times normal... They are not and it will not...

Actually the best thing that AOPA/etc. can do is press the Senate why Justice is pursuing cases against a pilot where there is no smoking gun... This is one where we can get some sympathy by being moderate and polite, but persistent (none of which is expensive as compared to suits)
 
What remains? Compensation for:

a) 8 months in jail.
b) his airplane did not appreciate while it was in their possession.
c) loss of his business, I am sure it failed or at least suffered irreparably.
d) loss of personal reputation
e) expenses; attorney and other -no doubt in the high 5 digit range?

F) A LAW THAT NEEDS TO BE REPEALED!

Spike, did this judgement involve jury nullification?
 
Counter suit? He certainly can show monetary damages.
 
n20junkie said:
The war on drugs has removed more liberty than any single ideal.
Click to expand...

Nah. Both sides rescinding Habius Corpus during the Civil War was worse.

Or same thing with Japanese and German prison camps in the Lower 48 during WWII.

But yeah, it's up there.
 
And WHO is going to pay the expense of getting that plane airworthy again after sitting idle for three years???? Anyone want to venture a guess?

Calculate that cost in dollars and the file a case against the responsible parties for damages.
 
DutchessFlier said:
And WHO is going to pay the expense of getting that plane airworthy again after sitting idle for three years???? Anyone want to venture a guess?

Calculate that cost in dollars and the file a case against the responsible parties for damages.
Click to expand...
I'm not a person who believes that every time something bad happens to you it is a lottery ticket that you run to court to cash in, but I would definitely agree with this suit. The money that they cost him is quantifiable, and that amount of money is what they should pay.

I am also in favor of "loser pays" in civil cases. If I sue you, and you win because you had not done what I sued you for, I should have to reimburse your legal expenses.
 
hopmedic said:
I am also in favor of "loser pays" in civil cases. If I sue you, and you win because you had not done what I sued you for, I should have to reimburse your legal expenses.
Click to expand...

I used to say that too. Until someone pointed out to me that it puts the odds in the favor of the guy with the deepest pockets. Say, for example, a couple of Wal-Mart security guards nab my child and she needs medical attention and they don't call EMS and she dies....I should have a good case against Wal-Mart. Except that I have a really steep uphill legal battle and they'll undoubtedly rack up millions in attorneys fees that I would be responsible for if I lost. Most people wouldn't risk it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top