FBI misled judge who signed warrant for Beverly Hills seizure of $86 million in cash

Outrageous! I just don't know where to start, read the article. This is frightening (although not surprising).

The FBI lied to the judge in order to get a warrant, defied the judge's restrictions on the warrant, made a blanket assumption that every safe deposit box holder was hiding criminal assets related to unknown crimes, and then tried to keep you from finding out about it. All in an attempt to find crimes that they didn't even know existed. Who, exactly, are the criminals? Reminds one of the Stasi...

Excerpts from the linked article...

The privacy invasion was vast when FBI agents drilled and pried their way into 1,400 safe-deposit boxes at the U.S. Private Vaults store in Beverly Hills...

Eighteen months later, newly unsealed court documents show that the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles got their warrant for that raid by misleading the judge who approved it.

They omitted from their warrant request a central part of the FBI's plan: Permanent confiscation of everything inside every box containing at least $5,000 in cash or goods, a senior FBI agent recently testified.

The FBI’s justification for the dragnet forfeiture was its presumption that hundreds of unknown box holders were all storing assets somehow tied to unknown crimes, court records show....

The U.S. attorney’s office has tried to block public disclosure of court papers that laid bare the government's deception, but a judge rejected its request to keep them under seal.

"The government did not know what was in those boxes, who owned them, or what, if anything, those people had done," Robert Frommer, a lawyer who represents nearly 400 box holders in the class-action case, wrote in court papers.

news.yahoo.com...

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

The FBI lying to judges seems to be a trend.

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

Eighteen months ago?

Only a couple of months into Biden's reign... God only knows how much more corrupt sh!t the alphabet agencies have been getting away with since then.

This is just what we know. How much more is out there like this?

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
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.

No it's not and the FBI didn't even assert probable cause because they knew they didn't have any.

"Box holders would liken the raid to police barging into a building's 700 apartments and taking every tenant's possessions when they have evidence of wrongdoing by nobody but the landlord."

From the article:

The court filings also show that federal agents defied restrictions that U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim set in the warrant by searching through box holders' belongings for evidence of crimes.

"The government did not know what was in those boxes, who owned them, or what, if anything, those people had done," Robert Frommer, a lawyer who represents nearly 400 box holders in the class-action case, wrote in court papers.

"That's why the warrant application did not even attempt to argue there was probable cause to seize and forfeit box renters' property."

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman

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.

No it's not and the FBI didn't even assert probable cause because they knew they didn't have any.

"Box holders would liken the raid to police barging into a building's 700 apartments and taking every tenant's possessions when they have evidence of wrongdoing by nobody but the landlord."

From the article:

The court filings also show that federal agents defied restrictions that U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim set in the warrant by searching through box holders' belongings for evidence of crimes.

"The government did not know what was in those boxes, who owned them, or what, if anything, those people had done," Robert Frommer, a lawyer who represents nearly 400 box holders in the class-action case, wrote in court papers.

"That's why the warrant application did not even attempt to argue there was probable cause to seize and forfeit box renters' property."

To continue your analogy, if a landlord admitted to intentionally rented the majority of their apartments to illegal immigrant drug dealers who were willing to pay exorbitant fees to anonymously live in the building and conduct illegal activities, you believe there would not be enough probably cause to search and seize the similar possessions of those in the same building?

Sounds like practice for a bigger raid in the future…

a reply to: Overseeall

Sounds like probable cause to arrest the offending criminals, but no, better off going after random customers:

Under the plea deal with U.S. Private Vaults Inc., the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles agreed not to file criminal charges against the company’s two owners. That decision ran counter to a recent Department of Justice policy requiring prosecutors to be more aggressive about holding individuals accountable for corporate wrongdoing.

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.

originally posted by: Overseeall

To continue your analogy, if a landlord admitted to intentionally rented the majority of their apartments to illegal immigrant drug dealers who were willing to pay exorbitant fees to anonymously live in the building and conduct illegal activities, you believe there would not be enough probably cause to search and seize the similar possessions of those in the same building?

Don't you think that if the FBI thought they had probable cause, they would have put it on the warrant application to the judge???? Why did the judge specifically say for the FBI to NOT search the boxes??

Seriously?!

Please just read the article and I think all your questions will be answered, At least to the extent that you are willing to admit it to yourself.

Again... from the article:

Kim [the judge] was explicit in limiting the scope of the raid. "This warrant does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety deposit boxes," his warrant stated.

However, they did it anyway...

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.

If they had 'probable cause' then why lie to the judge? Which seems unreal so illegal , but perfectly acceptable under the bigdiaper regime

FBI taking up robbing banks now huh?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
FBI taking up robbing banks now huh?

And fabricating lies in order to raid the homes of former U.S. Presidents.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Sounds like practice for a bigger raid in the future…

Gold,crypto,food,toilet paper, gasoline powered suvs and trucks,etc

All our stuff belongs to them.

And they'll get away with it.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Sounds like practice for a bigger raid in the future…

Gold,crypto,food,toilet paper, gasoline powered suvs and trucks,etc

All our stuff belongs to them.

And they'll get away with it.

They will get away with it , till the day they hang after the trials for crimes against humanity. They have been working with the same criminals with one agenda : plandemic, then the 'great reset' .

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

So, just allow all the criminals to withdraw their criminal profits? Make sense, let those illegal immigrant drug dealers keep their money right so they can go to another state and continue on?

Makes no sense to me.

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

So, just allow all the criminals to withdraw their criminal profits? Make sense, let those illegal immigrant drug dealers keep their money right so they can go to another state and continue on?

Makes no sense to me.

You don't make any sense. Do you have any proof that the items in the safety deposit boxes are "criminal profits"?
I just had to have the items in my box appraised to increase the insurance on them because over time the items have become more valuable. None of those items are "criminal profits".

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

So, just allow all the criminals to withdraw their criminal profits? Make sense, let those illegal immigrant drug dealers keep their money right so they can go to another state and continue on?

Makes no sense to me.

You don't make any sense. Do you have any proof that the items in the safety deposit boxes are "criminal profits"?
I just had to have the items in my box appraised to increase the insurance on them because over time the items have become more valuable. None of those items are "criminal profits".

The owners of the company admitted that their clients were drug dealers and that they helped launder money. Did you read the linked article?

Really effing sickening people making EXCUSE's for the Federal Bureau of Corruption.

Eighteen months later, newly unsealed court documents show that the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles got their warrant for that raid by misleading the judge who approved it.

They omitted from their warrant request a central part of the FBI's plan: Permanent confiscation of everything inside every box containing at least $5,000 in cash or goods, a senior FBI agent recently testified.

The FBI’s justification for the dragnet forfeiture was its presumption that hundreds of unknown box holders were all storing assets somehow tied to unknown crimes, court records show.

A COMPLETE violation of the fourth amendment.

originally posted by: Overseeall

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

So, just allow all the criminals to withdraw their criminal profits? Make sense, let those illegal immigrant drug dealers keep their money right so they can go to another state and continue on?

Makes no sense to me.

You don't make any sense. Do you have any proof that the items in the safety deposit boxes are "criminal profits"?
I just had to have the items in my box appraised to increase the insurance on them because over time the items have become more valuable. None of those items are "criminal profits".

The owners of the company admitted that their clients were drug dealers and that they helped launder money. Did you read the linked article?

Sounds like the owners committed a crime.
What were they charged with?
Oh, that’s right… they were not charged.
There is a pesky little thing called the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution that is protecting the customers of the facility, because the warrant specifically stated that the boxes were off limits.