
Feds seize 64-year-old man's life savings, without bringing any crime charges - crypto-jeronimo
https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/man-64-sues-after-customs-seizes-life-savings-from-carry-on-15262841
======
kevin_b_er
Civil asset forfeiture is where the government directly steals your money
without being supported probable cause and without being supported by Oath or
affirmation. A sham trial is held against your money where you must prove your
innocence to re-secure your effects. The money is then used to fund the police
agency. Many have adjusted theirs budgets with the expected amount they will
seize from the public.

You are not secure in your persons, houses, papers, or effects within the
United States of America. They may be seized at any time on flimsy
justification.

------
xkcd-sucks
In Albania: Corrupt cops take your cash. In the USA: Corrupt cops are
protected by public policy set at the highest level of government, and you get
a receipt when your cash is stolen. It's unfortunate that metrics of
government corruption don't account for civil asset forfeiture.

------
mywittyname
Is there anything we can do to help this person out?

~~~
kevin_b_er
You could vote against the politicians who supported Jeff Sessions, the US
Attorney General who openly supports and wants to expand civil asset
forfeiture.

Here's the list of senators who voted for a man calling for expansion of
stealing from the public:
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/08/us/politics/j...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/08/us/politics/jeff-
sessions-confirmation-vote.html)

~~~
thefifthsetpin
That's a 99% party-line vote. You could kick most of 'em out and those seats
would just be filled with another republican who would have voted the same
way.

If you want to see movement on this issue, then you need to communicate your
views with your representatives.

~~~
maxerickson
There seems to be some opportunity at this point to try to steer the political
energy opposed to the Trump movement in a direction where it, like, has a
reasonable and just society as a real actual goal.

------
weliketocode
Come on, now.

If I can't travel with a pint of water. This man surely shouldn't be traveling
with $58,000 of cash.

He should absolutely get the money back assuming there was no wrongdoing. But
let's not pretend that his actions weren't suspect.

~~~
EliRivers
Speaking as a filthy foreigner, part of the longstanding claim of moral
superiority of the US was that it didn't matter how suspect (sic) your actions
were; that the USA was a place of rule of law; not rule by law. That habeus
corpus was respected. That a man going about his lawful business need not have
to justify himself to government bully-boys.

Turns out that was all bullshit.

~~~
weliketocode
Filthy foreigner? Don't insinuate that I have xenophobia.

Do you not hate the TSA and how difficult traveling in the US can be?

Given how hard it is to travel with innocuous items, no one should be
surprised that he had difficulty carrying $58k in cash.

~~~
Maybestring
Those innocuous items are banned because they are supposedly, either directly
dangerous, or just too difficult to verify as safe (liquids). But you'll find
TSA has no problem with you choosing to leave the airport with your oversized
shampoo bottle instead of taking your flight if that's what you prefer to do.

~~~
weliketocode
That's simply not true.

The TSA will absolutely stop you if you try to back out of the screening
process once you've already started.

~~~
foobarchu
I've never tried that, and can't verify what happens, but I can tell you that
if you bring too large a bottle of liquid they will let you put it into
checked baggage to retrieve at your destination. Clearly the same offer is not
on the table with cash.

Furthermore, nothing in the TSA rules says "no cash exceeding X dollars". If
they don't want you to bring it, they should explicitly disallow it.

~~~
girvo
Interesting. They do say that in Aus and NZ. No cash over a few thousand IIRC.
Then you have to declare it to customs

