[Listeeworld] Fwd: FW: newest crime: DUI of money

The tempo of Bushonian asset seizure quickens, as currency and
gold are targeted for confiscation due to the latest ruling by the 8th
Circuit Court. A three-judge panel of the Federal Appeals Court in the
8th Circuit has ruled that if a motorist is carrying "large" sums of
money, it is automatically subject to confiscation.

In the case entitled: "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency,"
a man named Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, who the court affirmed had a 'lack of
significant criminal history' and was "neither accused nor convicted of
any crime" had $124,700 seized which the appeals court has ruled has no
recourse to recover his money. The facts of the case are that "on May
28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his
rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80, after which his car was searched
and his money was taken from him. The money happened to be the life
savings of several people, who intended to purchase a refrigerated truck
for a produce business. Gonzolez was not charged with the commission of
any crime, but his money was charged with being illegal. This was done
despite the fact that he was not charged with having garnered or earned
that money in any unlawful capacity. Driving with money and/or gold is
now a crime in Bushonian Cabalist America.

Eventually this case will go to the Supreme Court, and public
comments by Justices Scalia et al have made it obvious that the
Supreme Court will concur with the 8th Circuit Court in this
matter, pursuant to PATRIOT Act powers, being used to increase the
scope of Bushonian asset confiscation policies.

What's important is that the court did not establish in its ruling
any threshold amount of currency that could be seized, leaving
that question blank or open to interpretation. Unless the Supreme
Court rules otherwise, which is unlikely, the Supreme Court is to
affix some monetary amount.

Absent any judicial action regarding the fixing of any monetary
amount that can be seized, the National Association of Police,
after consultation with the U.S. Treasury and Deputy Reichsführer
aka Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez's office, the Department of
Justice, has determined that, henceforth, all sums of U.S. or
foreign currency exceeding $10,000 can and will be seized by the
nation's police departments and law enforcement agencies. This
would also imply federal law enforcement.

Money would be subject to seizure upon the stopping of any vehicle
or any persons on public transport. This is a connection with the
6th Circuit Court decision that we wrote about previously: that
any citizen carrying more than $10,000 in either an automobile,
train, bus, or boat within U.S. territorial jurisdiction will now
have their currency confiscated.

It should be noted that this three-judge panel from the 8th
Circuit Court ruled that, even though no drugs were found, the
evidence was "consistent" with drug trafficking. What the circuit
court ruled regarding narcotics, or the implication of being
connected with narcotics, was just a judicial blind used to
justify the confiscation of the money. This goes way beyond
narcotics.

This doesn't even involve the so-called crime of "structuring"
which requires reporting money transfers or transactions of more
than $10,000.

Law enforcement is using the terrorist anti-money-laundering
provisions within PATRIOT II combined with the enhanced power of
the U.S. Treasury, also found under PATRIOT II, regarding the
confiscation of currencies and gold. The police are now going to
interpret this -- that monies are to be seized. And they're
essentially making this interpretation at the urging of Deputy
Reichsführer Gonzalez. He's the one who's really behind it, with
the approval and full cooperation of the U.S. Treasury.

These charges will then be listed as "The United States vs. the
amount of money." In other words, the citizen from whom the
currency is being seized, as the 8th Circuit pointed out, is not
even party to any unlawful transaction. The money itself becomes
the unlawful transaction.

What perhaps the less sophisticated don't understand is that the
reason the government is using a charge against the money is that
it forecloses the owner of the money's legal ability to petition
for its return, or to use the judicial system to try to get the
money back. Because the owner of the money is not a party in
standing. The money is only a party in standing. This was very
craftily done -- this idea of charging the money and not the
person. In other words, foreclose the citizen's ability to make a
claim as an enjoined party and only through an amicus curiae
action to ever get the money back. Since this is a criminal
charge, the nature of the charge further forecloses the owner of
said seized currencies or gold capability of seeking return of his
assets via a writ of replevin (when a third party comes into the
action seeking to have a claim in the asset.)

This legal ruling is not setting any legal precedent. It is
re-affirming expanding of PATRIOT Act confiscation powers, and
separate U.S. Treasury acts to move towards confiscation, which
started in July of 2003 at the urging of the White House.

Using the enhanced regulation regarding U.S. Treasury Form 4789,
the U.S. Police Association has now said that citizens who are
carrying more than $10,000 in currency, be that U.S. or the
foreign equivalent thereof, or gold bullion coins or bullion
(which are also defined under the same expanded 4789 statute) must
carry a copy of that form with them if they are carrying the
currency or gold in public -- to prove that the money and/or
bullion has been duly declared to the United States Treasury, that
the requisite form has, in fact, been filled out and is in receipt
by the U.S. Treasury Department.

It's interesting that, only 2 weeks prior to this, the U.S.
Treasury, in a special note to the Department of Justice, noted
the dramatic increase of middle class citizens taking currency
with average amounts of about $30,000, physical gold, silver
bullion, and/or bullion coins across the United States borders
into Mexico and Canada to place these currencies, gold and/or
silver on deposit in Mexican and Canadian banks, or to establish
safe deposit boxes in Mexican or Canadian banks that have catered
specifically to this trade.

These citizens are the most unwashed and the most naive. They do
not realize that there are more sophisticated means to transfer
monies and/or gold out of the country. Although the regime has
seen to it that there are ever decreasing loopholes, there are
still ways to do it. But this is being done by citizens who are
essentially ignorant of that, the unwashed, or the middle class,
whatever you want to call them.

Despite its denials, the Bush Cheney Regime is increasingly
concerned about the middle class expatriating assets outside of
the United States. The regime does not want to have citizens with
financial means to draw on outside of the United States because
that empowers US citizens in the future.

Here is another key component of all of this. As Deputy
Reichsführer Gonzalez pointed out, it is the Department of
Justice's opinion that it is inherently an act of sedition for
citizens to be expatriating monies and gold and bullion. And,
according to the Department of Justice, this is specifically
because citizens who are most likely to expatriate small amounts
of currency are those citizens most likely opposed to the
regime. This is not to be confused with the multi-billion
expatriation of assets which has occurred in the top 10% of the
nation - those most loyal to the Regime.

The Supreme Court will concur with the 8th Circuit, I believe, and
will purposely not establish any guidelines, allowing the
Department of Justice to use PATRIOT Act powers in lieu of
judicial guidelines.

So why aren't judicial guidelines being set regarding the amount
of money that can be seized? It is, once again, an example of
ceding judicial power to the regime. Why? Because it is allowing
the regime to use PATRIOT Act powers, which cannot be challenged
by citizens, instead of a judicial decision, which could be
challenged.

The average citizen does not understand just how sinister this
really is. You can tell by the tone of Gonzalez's remarks, and
Vice President Cheney's remarks on the same subject matter. They
don't want citizens opposed to the regime, blonde-haired blue-eyed
Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones opposed to this regime, to have monies in
Canada or Mexico, readily available, that could be drawn on to
potentially start some sort of an organized insurrection against
the regime -- if the regime in the post-November 2008 environment
elected to use its PATRIOT Act powers to cancel elections and rule
by fiat.

The regime then is looking to the future to cut off the financial
funding of any potential indigenous insurrection or civil revolt
against "The Regime" for using its now-lawful Patriot Act powers
to cancel future elections and rule by edict.

Citizens should understand how sinister this decision is, and that
it is yet another building block of where the regime is going in
terms of asset confiscation.

Furthermore, it reveals what the regime's future concerns are:
That the regime recognizes the possibility of some sort of
homegrown future insurrection in the United States that would most
likely be triggered by a variety of factors. This can clearly be
demonstrated by the Regime's multi-billion funding of the CILF
project.

The most likely factor would be the regime using its now-lawful
Patriot Act powers to cancel or even to make a declaration of
permanent cancellation of all future elections, wherein the regime
would simply rule by edict.

Now, the regime could also be using this because of recent rumors
that have been emanating from the White House and the Department
of Justice. If both Houses of Congress change hands in the
upcoming elections, certain people may come forward with
information regarding fraud being perpetrated by the current
regime against the people of the United States in unprecedented
amounts of money.

The relevance of this is the same concern that the Reagan Bush
regime had, particularly in 1986 and `87. There could be
revelations of the fraud that it was committing against the people
of the United States, and this, in turn, could inspire an increase
in civil unrest in the country.

Regarding PATRIOT Act powers, what have they specifically
targeted? Suppressing civil unrest, or, more importantly, giving
law enforcement and the military dramatically increased domestic
powers to squash civil dissent.

As the regime's political popularity polls continue to fall, were
there to be revelations of massive financial fraud obviously
committed by the regime against the taxpayers of the United States
at a time when wealth is so consolidated within the top 1% and
wealth diminishment within the bottom 50% has occurred at a rate
such that it has never occurred at before, eventually it would
foster some civil unrest.

The District Court's ruling in his case reads -- "The District
Court's opinion includes no finding as to the credibility of
Gonzolez and the other two claimants. The court did observe that
the explanations of the claimants were 'plausible and consistent,'
but this is different from a finding that the court actually
'believes the testimony.'" "'Plausible' means 'apparently
acceptable or trustworthy.' See Oxford English Dictionary."

Despite the fact that Citizen Gonzolez (not to be confuse with
Deputy Reichsfurer of the same name) presented evidence to back up
his claim that they intended to purchase a refrigerated truck and
other assets necessary to start a restaurant business, the court
ruled that they could "legally" seize these assets

Continuing with the ruling -- "The government's counter prevailing
proof was not strong enough to meet its burden of showing a
substantial connection by a preponderance of the evidence.
Nevertheless, the ruling was in their favor."

Citizen Gonzolez, from whom the money was seized, was not a party
to the action. The lawful submissions his attorneys made to the
court were submitted as amicus curiae. They were not submitted as
an actual party, as a defendant.

They were submitted as amicus curiae because it wasn't the
defendant that was charged. That's not what the court was deciding
on. Because that was the original pretext used. That is moot. How
can a stack of currency commit drug trafficking?

The court wrote -- "The totality of these circumstances, the large
amount of concealed currencies, strange travel pattern, inability
to identify a key party in the purported innocent transaction,
unusual rental car papers, a canine alert, and the false
statements of law enforcement officers, leads most naturally to
the inference that Gonzolez was involved in illegal drug
trafficking activity and that the currency was substantially
connected to it."

So even though there was no evidence, they're ruling,
nevertheless, against the money. As the court said in its opinion:
The law enforcement jurisdiction that made the arrest and
investigated the case could not prove that Citizen Gonzolez had
committed any unlawful act. But that was separate and distinct
because Citizen Gonzolez, through his counsel, was submitting
petition to the court not in defense of his own actions. It was a
submission in order to seek return of the money. Gonzolez had a
lesser standing in court because he wasn't a named party to the
criminal action. They weren't accusing him of a crime.

In this Catch 22 situation, the money had to defend itself. And
the money, as the court pointed out, stands mute. Mute and moot.

Citizen Gonzolez was simply submitting documentation and
presenting argument pursuant to an amicus curiae claim. But
without the requisite U.S. Treasury Form 4789.

If you are carrying bullion or attempting to transport bullion
across the land, air or maritime territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, you must have in your possession a copy of the
executed 4789 Long Form to show that you have declared the gold.

The full declaration, by the way, isn't simply declaring it. It is
a full declaration of where you are taking the currency or gold,
what foreign safe deposit box or bank you will be putting that
currency or gold into to make the Secret Service's job easier to
confiscate it later on.

Once again, we've discussed this before. PATRIOT II dramatically
increased the U.S. Secret Service's ability to 'invade and seize'
currency, gold and other assets in foreign safe deposit boxes and
accounts held by U.S. citizens, ex of any judicial proceeding and
pursuant only to an administrative action.

What they mean by administrative action is if the regime were to
move forward with a formal re-declaration of the gold confiscation
act as in 1933.

This is exactly what President Thomas Jefferson warned against and
acted to overturn government powers enacted by his predecessor the
would-be American Emperor John Adams, noting that ever increasing
power of asset confiscation by government was a step on the road
of tyranny.

It should be remembered Adams had specifically linked asset
seizures to political acts of all who opposed him, since Adams
considered all opposition to his regime to be "seditious" and
attempted to suppress all who opposed him by threat of asset
confiscation.

Today Bushonian asset confiscation is another name for legalized