In this piece, written by Paul Watson, we find that the watchful eye on withdrawals is not being driven by your local police department, but is a pending edict from the Department of Justice, led by that paragon of virtue, Eric Holder, at least it is led by him until someone else can be confirmed.
According to the article, a senior Holder associate at Justice spoke recently to a group of bankers, recommending that they call in local law enforcement every time anyone withdraws $5,000 or more in cash. That suggestion to the bankers came from assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell, who urged banks to “alert law enforcement authorities about the
problem” (i.e., rat out their loyal customers) so that police can “seize the funds” or at least “initiate an
investigation."
Now, I have absolutely taken $5,000 in cash out of a bank account in the past, and certainly more than once. I don't recall the reasons, but in at least a couple of the cases it was to enable me to put funds in an account at another bank to cover a payment that needed to be made from that other account for business reasons. By using cash, the funds were immediately available, faster than a cashier's check and a lot cheaper than a wire.
But according to Eric Holder and his minions, irrespective of the fact that there was absolutely zero illegal tinge or anything remotely unethical about what I did, in Holder's view it is perfectly fine for the bank to call in the Fairfax County sheriff's office and have me chased down before I can deposit the funds in the other institution. They could then seize my personal assets and kill my business, make me late on payments and all the other results of having money stolen from me -- but legally.
So Eric ... tell me this. What profiling mechanism do you plan to have banks use to determine whether it's just honest old Bob Sutton taking cash out to pay a bill from his business bank or maybe buy a used car privately, or whether it's criminal Charlie pulling money to buy drugs? Ever watch "Storage Wars"? Those guys are required to pay in cash, are you going to pull over Jarrod and Brandi on the way to an auction?
How dare the Justice Department take it upon themselves to decide that a $5,000 cash withdrawal is, in and of itself, sufficient justification to seize the money from a presumed law-abiding citizen? How dare the Justice Department solicit -- and thereby pressure -- neighborhood banks to rat out customers for actions which, absent any indication of any criminal activity, have perfectly rational, non-criminal justifications?
You know, it makes you think. The current president, socialist that he is, believes that all money is his, or at least the Government's -- which in his view means "his". Private property has no meaning for him (except for maybe Hillary's email server -- and his paycheck). The Constitution has a pretty specific rule against illegal search and seizure, but let's just say that Obama and Holder are not very big fans of the Constitution.
Nothing seems very surprising, once you think about it. A band of socialists thinks that any step that involves taking from Americans for any reason is reasonable. If they don't get away with it this time, they'll at least have had a position staked out allowing them to try over here next week, in this other case where they can seize someone's private property (except for Hillary's email server).
I do really want to hear from them how they want banks to profile, when a $5,000 cash withdrawal is made, if they need to rat the customer out to the cops. Race? Hat pulled down over the eyes? Nice car? Ratty car? Or do they not recommend profiling and just rat every withdrawal out?
I'm imagining sitting here with President Washington, visiting from Heaven for a day to have coffee and see what his country has become. "Mr. President", I might ask, "Your 43rd successor wants his Attorney General to seize cash from citizens solely because it was taken out of a bank. What do you think, sir?"
"Bob", he would reply, "Make the coffee a little stronger. And next visit I think I'm going to try going to Canada. If they can't even manage to trust the Fourth Amendment, we've obviously failed here."
In Holder and Obama we so, so do not trust.
Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
My son, a college student, has his own account at a major bank. When short of funds, I got cash out of my own account and delivered it to a branch of his bank next door, cash so he could have it immediately. Federal rules now say I can't deposit cash into an account I don't own in order to prevent money laundering. Maybe Real Money in cash, but $300? If I'm risking jail for $300, my underground business isn't successful enough to monitor.
ReplyDeleteI actually still have that sort of transaction. My mother-in-law lives with us and is barely ambulatory. When she wants to give a few hundred dollars to her son, 60 miles away, I go to the bank, use her ATM card to withdraw the cash and then walk inside and deposit it to his account so he has immediate access. Now THAT'S going to be a suspicious transaction?
ReplyDelete