cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13145612
(edit) Would someone please ship some counterfeit money through there and get it confiscated, so the police can then be investigated for spending counterfeit money?
ACAB, but that headline gave me a chuckle, at just how fucking blatantly criminal, and more importantly immoral, but also so so ridiculous they are. Can’t you just picture a bunch of cops in full tactical gear standing around in some room in a post office, patting each other on the back as they successfully empty a bunch of birthday cards in to a pile… 😂
(having read the article, and knowing cops, I know there were serious amounts of money stolen, this was just the image I got from the headline)
My first thought was the same thing. But then I realized that birthday cards go in envelopes. Usually they go through USPS, not FedEx.
That’s a very good point that I completely missed lol
They probably weigh the birthday cards to see if anything seems worth opening.
True, though I can also see it being a lot more about the taking for them, than it is about the money. Plus, cops aren’t known for liking any extra work, or making good decisions…
Do you think the wall behind them has one poorly drawn ‘fundraising goal meter’ with big ticket items on it, like machine gun robot dogs, amwraps, machine gun drones, tanks, next-gen stingray devices, or networked city-wide camera systems so they can spy on their ex-girlfriends; or do you think each officer has their own chart, with smaller, more personal items, like shooting targets of POC and pets, vaguely white supremacist decals for their cars, training sessions on how to manufacture evidence, or discrete GPS tracking, first aid kits, and bruise concealing makeup for their wives?
Oof… Maybe a mixture of both? Like at the ticket “shop” at the arcade, so the robot dog is the super mega prize hanging at the top as the unattainable temptation, but most pigs only collect enough for the minor prizes, and can’t figure out that pooling tickets would get them better things…
Indiana law requires any assets seized in a civil forfeiture case to go directly to the school fund — likely to mitigate the moral hazard and incentive to steal citizens’ assets — but little money is actually going to that fund. Instead, police departments are keeping it for themselves, and a 2019 Indiana Supreme Court case upheld that, allowing police, prosecutors or private lawyers contracted to carry out the cases to keep a minimum of 90%.
Naked corruption.
Something similar happened to me. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) seized money from a bank transfer paying rent to my landlord (years ago). It took five days of calls to the bank to find out why the transfer didn’t go through. I got a case number and filled out paperwork disputing it (with OFAC) and the letter I received in response said they had no record of the case.
The best I could hypothesize what happened was that because my landlord had a Middle Eastern-sounding name, maybe this was suspected to relate to terrorism. I gave up. I knew it wasn’t worth my time to pursue because to get justice, I’d have to invest more time and energy than the cash was worth. I nearly got evicted because of this shit and I still judged the bureaucracy too great to address (I think I made the right choice; no sense fighting the government unless my freedom is on the line or it’s some huge sum of money).
I got money orders at the post office and deposited them directly into my landlord’s bank account after that. Huge pain in the ass to make sure my money went where I wanted. I live in a building owned by a corporation, now. I don’t think I’d rent from a private citizen again because of that bullshit. (It’s not like I’ll ever own a home, given that I like living in the Bay Area.)
Since it’s a small amount of money, the legal process would be with small claims court. You don’t need a lawyer for that. Small claims is cheap and easy going. It’s typically under $100 to file (which you get back if you win) and in some states a registered letter is sufficient to serve the other party.
You would not want to sue OFAC though. In this case you would ideally keep a paper trail of your payment attempt and carry on. Give your landlord the proof of payment (attempt) and wait for the landlord to act against you. That’s the easiest… you wait for the court date and show up with proof of your attempt to pay and a copy of your landlord’s payment procedure (which you followed). OFAC apparently did a money grab on the landlord, not you, so you would come away clean so long as you paid as per your landlord’s instructions.
That’s not going to work for long. Best you’re going to get is a stay until you pay. Might as well make it right with the landlord while you actually do take OFAC to small claims court. Because they’ll find it then.
But also, this is what your Congress critter is for. All kinds of things get magically resolved when the congressional office of the honorable so and so makes an inquiry.
That’s not going to work for long. Best you’re going to get is a stay until you pay.
Hold on. Who are you saying OFAC took the money from, the tenant or the landlord? You can’t have it both ways. The tenant complied with the terms of the contract to send the money as directed. OFAC targeted the landlord. A court would not have impose a higher expectation than following contractual obligations.
I could see if a check got lost in the mail, where the result is that the defentant retains possession and constructive use of the money, then a court would have enough descretion to rule fairly. But the OFAC case is not that case.
That’s not how contracts work. Unless the contact specified using that avenue, the only thing that matters is payment received.
But really I think this all smells because OFAC doesn’t actually seize money right away. They freeze it, so it gets deposited but you can’t do anything with it. Which would mean it got to the land lord’s bank account but that account was frozen.
For the money to get pulled into a different account, to actually be seized would mean they had definitely blocked this guy from dealing with Americans. In which case everything, money, buildings, company, is now frozen.
That’s not how contracts work. Unless the contact specified using that avenue, the only thing that matters is payment received.
You apparently believe OFAC took the money from the sender, not the recipient despite targeting the recipient. A court is not going to say that a payer owes money they already paid and must pay again in duplicate despite a government action to take money from the recipient. I have my money on the tenant prevailing in this case. Since OFAC targeted the recipient, the money likely would have left the sender’s bank and landed in the bank of the recipient. At that moment, the money is on the other side of the wall and outside of the sender’s control. The sender did not hire the recipient’s bank. The money grab would have happened after the money landed in the recipient’s bank. A sender cannot be responsible for a recipient’s bank paying their client.
If OFAC were some ransomware/cyber criminal gang running out of Nigeria, I would agree (as it’s not a government confiscating money from a recipient).
If I say in my contract: pay me by stashing cash under a rock at location X, and the payer complies, and then a bypasser takes the money, that’s a problem for the (foolish) person who drafted the contract that way. The drafter of a contract has a higher responsibility to flaws in the text of the agreement than the party who merely agrees to the contract.
For example, the US specifically has a law that states the benefit of ambiguity in contracts goes to the party who did /not/ draft the contract. This rightfully encourages contract writers to be diligent.
Otherwise you are left with penalizing people for faulty contract terms that they did not draft.
That’s wild!
You ever check OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals list for your landlord?
Two plot twists that come to mind: landlord was actually ISIS with a great cover story, bank manager stole the money and made up a case number.
Tbh strictly speaking the bank probably shouldn’t have told him anything about the OFAC intervention, they’re not supposed to tip off in these circumstances - so it could well have been a made.up number.
It’s really annoying that @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org just took this on the chin. For me even a dispute over $100 would be worth the courtroom battle just to satisfy my curiousity of what happened. A landlord cannot evict without a court procedure, so the tenant would not have to spend a dime on court costs and bring the paper trail to the court. From there, since the banks (all 3 involved) did a shitty job of investigating, they could have been named as 2nd party defendants (sue them all, let the judge sort it out). The investigation should have revealed the bank where the money landed and the actual bank account from there. They could then use the court to subpoena the agency that has “no record of the case”, but who the bank says has the money. If there is no case, then they can return the money (a judge would say).
OFAC obviously benefitted from someone’s court phobia even though the tenant had nothing to worry about.
Yeah, well my mental health was a greater priority as I was in a shitty place for a number of years. I’m not here to be a crusader when I’m barely staying alive. (That time of my life has happily been in the rearview mirror for a while now.)
“I don’t think I’d rent from a private citizen again because of that bullshit.”
And this is where they won.
Yes, handily.
So people should sue FedEx and let FedEx either stop transporting through the state or sue the state with those deep pockets. Or idk maybe the doj should fucking take this up as they are now fucking with interstate commerce and committing felonies as a state.
The institute for justice FIRE and a couple other major civil rights organizations have been working working on getting civil forfeiture over turned and made unconstitutional for decades now
for decades now
When obvious criminal activity requires decades to solve you should kind of take the hint…
I take it you have never been involved in the legal system
Yea it’s taking too long
Conservatives love civil asset forfeiture. They will fight like hell to keep it.
IIRC, New Mexico banned civil forfeiture. But the cops kept doing it anyway. So a law change is not enough… enforcement is also needed. Yes, against the police, sadly enough.
They can still perform asset forfeiture if they believe there is criminal probability. So they only need to have weak evidence criminal activity is at issue, to search, and confiscate things. Since this is the majority of what they did already, it didn’t do too much. This was mostly an attempt, by the state DA, to get ahead of the movement against asset forfeiture. A way for them to keep doing what they are doing, while paying lip service to civil rights. However their argument didn’t work as all forms of asset forfeiture are in the sights. They hoped having more cause, and a stricter documentation, would give them the leeway needed, but the case being brought is that if the item isn’t specifically evidence, it can’t be seized, if it is evidence it can’t kept, or there are other laws determining what is to be done when a conviction is had. So FIRE has said while it is nice it is a little more strict there, it is in no way outside of the scope of their lawsuits.
I’ve been boycotting FedEx for over a decade. Not for this reason but for the other reasons I mention in this thread.
It’s quite hard because many sellers do not disclose who they use for shipping. I can sometimes add a comment to my order saying “Do not use FedEx. If that’s the only option then cancel my order.” This makes online shopping tedious, so I’ve been driven to just shop locally.
Oh yes, Civil Forfeiture. But I’m sure that they would never use the counterfeit money to buy new toys for their precinct.
You mean like… let’s say… A Margarita machine?
That movie was pretty good.
Is it illegal to mail cash or something? Or are they just blatantly stealing from people?
It’s not illegal. It’s also not illegal for the police to claim it’s criminal profits and seize it. The courts decided your money, (and other property), does not enjoy the same rights you do. So you have a right against search and seizure but your money and other property does not. This does three things. It opens your stuff up to be seized without a warrant, it makes it a civil case to get your stuff back, and you have to prove you’re not a criminal and your stuff wasn’t used by criminals.
It is absolutely unconstitutional on the grounds that it’s a naked evasion of our 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights. But good luck explaining that to the guys with the guns.
This is why everyone should have guns. Steal my rent then, assholes!
I know that feels good but you will not survive it. Don’t shoot at the police.
Yeah it only works if everyone shoots at the police.
At which point we’ll have disarmed them via political means anyways.
deleted by creator
Neither will they. What’s the point of surviving with them around?
You might get a couple but there’s thousands of them.
More people like me need balls. Especially me. More importantly, I need to be armed and can’t just go buy at a store because of them.
By the time you have enough buy in to seriously threaten the cops in an area, you also have enough buy in to just elect politicians that will disarm them.
No it’s not illegal. Yes they are blatantly stealing. Fuck cops. Fuck Republicans voting laws to allow this shit.
It is against FedEx policy. These are terms you would agree to if signing for a shipment.
I bet those good boys spend it all in toys and snacks. Lol
Edit: Nvm the dogs don’t get to keep the money.
So it is theft twice then. First from the sender, then from the good boys and girls who find it.
Edit: Nvm the dogs don’t get to keep the money.
I’m sure they get plenty of doggie treats, likely procured with civil forfeitures. Which motivates the dogs to find more. I’m not the least bit worried that the dogs are unfairly exploited from the dog’s standpoint.
Edit: the following only applies to USPS, so it’s probably a good idea to only use USPS for mail.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1708
Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter, or from a letter or mail carrier, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or abstracts or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, or secretes, embezzles, or destroys any such letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein; or
Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein which has been left for collection upon or adjacent to a collection box or other authorized depository of mail matter; or
Whoever buys, receives, or conceals, or unlawfully has in his possession, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein, which has been so stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted, as herein described, knowing the same to have been stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
A cop who commits a crime is a criminal. A cop who commits a felony crime is a felon. Arrest them.FedEx is a private company providing delivery services. I’m not a lawyer but I’m guessing the statute you’re referencing only applies to USPS.
Shit, you’re right. The only recourse here is a suit against FedEx I think, from anyone who’s had money stolen, and it would have to be based in how they present themselves as a mail carrier such that the average consumer thinks their mail is protected when it’s not. Risky.
Since it’s civil asset forfeiture what actually happens is the state/municipality sues to take the money so it has to be fought in court against the state/municipality.
The problem is the state sues the money directly so the suit itself would be something like Indiana vs. $48,000 or Marion County vs. $48,000. This makes it a lot harder and more expensive to recover your money since they are suing an inanimate object, not the owner directly.
Civil asset forfeiture laws need to be scrapped and rewritten because this has been going on in the US for years.
However, that is extremely difficult, because the assets themselves — inanimate objects — are listed as the defendants, and such cases often tie the money up in long and challenging legal proceedings.
The money is being treated as a defendant.
No surprise that FedEx isn’t union.
It’s a massive violation of our Constitutional rights, but it turns out it is fine to do because of playing some games pretending the object is the defendant.
The money is being treated as a defendant.
Saw this shit in a movie last week, it sounded too dumb to be true…
I too watched ‘Rebel Ridge’ last week on Netflix.
First money being speech, now they’re giving money rights! /s
I could not reach that enshitified article but judging from the title, FedEx’s contemp for Black Lives Matter is consistent with their extreme right politics:
- FedEx is an ALEC member (thus opposes labor rights, women’s rights, environmental protection, gun control, taxation, consumer protection, financial regulation, public education, welfare…)
- FedEx used to give a discount to NRA members
- FedEx ships sharkfins, hunting trophies, and slave dolphins
- FedEx was founded by an ex military serviceman (a mostly right wing demographic)
Being on the extreme right would be consistent with BLM contempt. And indeed, fighting unions is FedEx’s core reason for being an ALEC member. Photos of DVDs were leaked and circulated on social media with FedEx on the label and some title like “how to mitigate unions”.
Ironic, I just watched Rebel Ridge which outlines this exact problem with civil asset forfeiture.
I was about to watch that tonight. I just want to see the scenes where the cops realize they fucked with modern day Rambo.
What are the dogs going to do with all that money?
I’ve never heard of cops being called dogs. Pigs, sure. Anyway, money confiscated in this way usually finances police station frills like high-end coffee machines.
Dogs is more accurate. Pigs are cleaner than dogs.
But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.
You’ve clearly never chilled with a pig
Really? I thought pigs were 2-cycle animals (eat their own output on the first iteration, like rabbits), no? I mean, sure, some minority of dogs eat their excrement – the same dogs that end up in the homes of Blue Collar Comedy comedians. Tough contest I guess. I had a dog that rolled in every rotten dead fish it encountered by the lake. Not sure why… maybe it serves as a good cologne to attract the females.
(edit) dogs might have a better memory than cops.
pigs have much the same kind of diet as humans, so i don’t know of any reason for them to eat their own poo.
Rabbits do this because they eat fibrous plant matter and it needs to go through twice to be processed sufficiently, they don’t have multiple stomachs like other grazers do.
I meant the animals, but I guess that works too.
yeah, I was slow to realize that. Like a day slow.
Who knows the type of bitches those dogs are dropping that cash on.
Pack your shit up tight, and send it with USPS. They need a reason (real suspicion) to open your package, so don’t give them any.
But wouldn’t a particular dog with particular training who then becomes very interested in your unopened USPS package be a real reason to open the pkg?
USPS is federally regulated and have different protections. Mail shipped through USPS cannot be opened by anyone other than the recipient for any reason besides a warrant. A dog indicating on your package would mean nothing to postal inspectors. Fedex and UPS are private companies and your packages do not have the same protections.
I have never heard of dogs being used to mass inspect USPS packages. I’m unsure if that would qualify as a reason for opening USPS packages. I can tell you as someone who lives in a community infamous as the source of many illicit packages (and the destination of the subsequent illicit payments), common knowledge here is to use USPS.
Only if the dog is meant to detect illegal substances. The USPS system doesn’t allow local police to go fishing.
Hey, that’s “Civil” Forfeiture in 2024.
“We have guns and riot gear. Wtf you gonna do about it?” – Signed, Bullies with Badges
Makes one wonder how many other teams there are. FedEx, UPS, USPS all have multiple hubs. If your own doesn’t have a hub, what does it have?
I’d say there’s a good chance this occurs at every logistics hub.
Cash is commonly banned by most logistics companies. As it is openly stated that it will not be carried by FedEx, it’s no stretch that the police will consider it contraband.
Source: I work for a competing company that also will not ship cash. Any of our employees will tell you no. Ship cash at your own risk.
As it is openly stated that it will not be carried by FedEx, it’s no stretch that the police will consider it contraband.
It is a stretch. Enforcing contractual agreements is not the job of the police. And it’s also a stretch to say the police are looking to protect the contractual interests of FedEx.
It’s also strangely inconsistent with FedEx’s anything goes practices, whereby FedEx is known for shipping morally dubious payloads:
- #sharkFins (illegal in countries that have a shred of respect animal welfare and the environment)
- hunting trophies
- slave dolphins
Normally, FedEx could normally claim that they are simply maximizing the bottom line in their duty to their greedy shareholders. But the cash ban is not consistent with that. Unless FedEx believes that anyone who loses an insured pkg would claim the pkg included cash as a way to max out the insurance payout. But in that case, it is not in FedEx’s business interest to enforce the policy – just to be able to point to the policy when an insurance claimant say cash was lost.
(update) In fact, police are preventing crime prevention by grabbing the cash. This inspired me to propose a new rule.
