Ah, that would be 'Because even your brass do idiotic crap like this.' And then try to defend it with idiotic statements like this:
Asked about the incident via e-mail, Farbstein said that "the carry-on
bag of the passenger alarmed because of the large unknown bulk in his
carry-on bag. When TSA officers opened the bag to determine what had
caused the alarm, the money was sitting inside. Quite unusual. TSA
alerted the airport police, who were investigating."
You'll notice that dumbass does NOT explain why she put a picture of the luggage and contents out to the world.
And then, just to make it all perfect, the thieves under color of law strike again:
In this case, the cash was seized by a federal agency, most likely the
Drug Enforcement Administration, according to Richmond airport spokesman
Troy Bell. "I don't believe the person was issued a summons or a
citation," he said. "The traveler was allowed to continue on his way."
'summons or citation' for WHAT, you bastard? He hadn't done anything illegal! Which, of course, didn't stop the farging thieves of the DEA from stealing it.
Which also touches on "Why do so many people hate us federal professionals?": because you're thieves and dirtbags. You don't like being called such? Stop being such.
1 comment:
The cash itself is the criminal. There's no need to issue a citation or summons when you have the criminal behind bars in the evidence locker. My concern is that the guy was not provided with a receipt.
And if I were the attorney that goes into court to try to get the money back I'd raise all sorts of stinks about 1) the receipt does not inventory each bill by denomination and serial number, and 2) after winning suggest the cops are trying to entrap my client by giving him cash contaminated with drug residue.
The cash we have on hand/in hand are our papers and are supposedly not to be seized without issue of a warrant. Sadly that went out the window when PDs realized that the .feds were willing to split seized assets with them.
stay safe.
Post a Comment