It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Overseeall
originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: neo96
I am not saying your course of action is better or worse...I am sure there would have been a better way.
They stole as much as they could from everyone
I would say confiscated the money to prevent criminals from taking their profits and fleeing or worse, moving to another state and continuing their crimes.
So you think they're just going to give it back to all the people they deem "non-criminals" without years of litigation. Dang.... I'm speechless.
Yes, confiscated items from those individuals found to not be involved will be returned. No litigation required for the innocent.
originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman
There is an interesting linked story.
Beverly Hills store admits to using safe deposit boxes to launder drug money
LINK
The company admitted that it recruited drug traffickers as customers and used the illicit proceeds to run the business. It also acknowledged that people at the company sold coc aine, arranged drug deals at the store and instructed customers how to structure cash transactions to dodge currency reporting requirements.
Sounds like probable cause to me.
originally posted by: Overseeall
originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: neo96
I am not saying your course of action is better or worse...I am sure there would have been a better way.
They stole as much as they could from everyone
I would say confiscated the money to prevent criminals from taking their profits and fleeing or worse, moving to another state and continuing their crimes.
So you think they're just going to give it back to all the people they deem "non-criminals" without years of litigation. Dang.... I'm speechless.
Yes, confiscated items from those individuals found to not be involved will be returned. No litigation required for the innocent.
originally posted by: MountainLaurel
originally posted by: Overseeall
originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: neo96
I am not saying your course of action is better or worse...I am sure there would have been a better way.
They stole as much as they could from everyone
I would say confiscated the money to prevent criminals from taking their profits and fleeing or worse, moving to another state and continuing their crimes.
So you think they're just going to give it back to all the people they deem "non-criminals" without years of litigation. Dang.... I'm speechless.
Yes, confiscated items from those individuals found to not be involved will be returned. No litigation required for the innocent.
According to the article, that’s not the case, several box holder’s agreed to give up a percentage of their assets in order to avoid costly court costs and get their assets back sooner. Sounds like blackmail to me !
a reply to: Overseeall
Why would an innocent person do that? Trick question, because they are 100% guilty of some illegal activity.
originally posted by: Overseeall
originally posted by: MountainLaurel
originally posted by: Overseeall
originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: neo96
I am not saying your course of action is better or worse...I am sure there would have been a better way.
They stole as much as they could from everyone
I would say confiscated the money to prevent criminals from taking their profits and fleeing or worse, moving to another state and continuing their crimes.
So you think they're just going to give it back to all the people they deem "non-criminals" without years of litigation. Dang.... I'm speechless.
Yes, confiscated items from those individuals found to not be involved will be returned. No litigation required for the innocent.
According to the article, that’s not the case, several box holder’s agreed to give up a percentage of their assets in order to avoid costly court costs and get their assets back sooner. Sounds like blackmail to me !
Why would an innocent person do that? Trick question, because they are 100% guilty of some illegal activity.
originally posted by: neo96
There is an object lesson here to keep your money somewhere on your property.
Reason's are.
1. A hole politicians like Trudeau.
2. A hole Bankers of the wokester kind.
3. A hole people like the theivin FBI.
4. A hole people like the theivin police.
5. Every other A hole not listed here.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Overseeall
What part of Beverly hills was confusing?
originally posted by: Overseeall
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Overseeall
What part of Beverly hills was confusing?
lol, I got a good a chuckle. Hard to counter that.
originally posted by: ntech
So why isn't this so called judge not slapping all the DOJ officials involved with one year contempt of court citations?