here is your 'honorable' and 'patriotic' FBI in action.......

https://reason.com/2022/08/19/fbi-m...rant-to-seize-hundreds-of-safe-deposit-boxes/

New court documents show that the FBI planned for months to seize and forfeit property found inside safe deposit boxes in an L.A. raid under the pretext of doing an inventory.

The FBI told a federal magistrate judge that it intended to open hundreds of safe deposit boxes seized during a March 2021 raid in order to inventory the items inside—but new evidence shows that federal agents were plotting all along to use the operation as an opportunity to forfeit cash and other valuables.

Federal agents failed to disclose those plans to the federal magistrate judge who issued the warrant for the high-profile raid of U.S. Private Vaults, a private business in Beverly Hills, California, that had been the subject of an FBI investigation since at least 2019. When the raid took place, the FBI also seems to have ignored limitations imposed by the warrant, including an explicit prohibition against using the safe deposit boxes as the basis for further criminal investigations.

Those details regarding the planning and execution of the FBI's raid of U.S. Private Vaults are now out in the open after a different federal judge ruled this week that the government could not keep those details out of the public record. As Reason has extensively reported, the raid on U.S. Private Vaults resulted in federal agents seizing and attempting to forfeit more than $86 million in cash as well as gold, jewelry, and other valuables from property owners who were suspected of no crimes. Attorneys representing some plaintiffs who are trying to recover their possessions interviewed the FBI agents who planned the raid, but federal prosecutors tried to keep some details of those depositions redacted.

The unredacted legal documents, filed in federal court on Thursday, show why the government was eager to keep those details under wraps. (Reason submitted an amicus brief in the case arguing that the redacted documents should be made public.)

In the affidavit submitted as part of the effort to obtain a warrant for the search, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Brown wrote that federal agents intended to merely inventory the contents of the seized safe deposit boxes. But the newly unredacted documents show that the FBI had drawn up plans months earlier to forfeit property from the boxes, and failed to inform the magistrate judge about those plans.

"We had already determined that there was probable cause to move forward" with civil forfeiture proceedings against the contents of the safe deposit boxes before the search occurred, FBI Special Agent Jessie Murray said in a deposition, according to court documents.

Those crucial details were omitted from the affidavit submitted to the magistrate judge who granted the warrant that allowed the FBI to search U.S. Private Vaults. As Reason has previously detailed, that same warrant expressly forbade federal agents from engaging in a "criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety [sic] deposit boxes."

The newly unredacted documents suggest the FBI never intended to abide by that limitation.
 
https://reason.com/2022/08/19/fbi-m...rant-to-seize-hundreds-of-safe-deposit-boxes/

New court documents show that the FBI planned for months to seize and forfeit property found inside safe deposit boxes in an L.A. raid under the pretext of doing an inventory.

The FBI told a federal magistrate judge that it intended to open hundreds of safe deposit boxes seized during a March 2021 raid in order to inventory the items inside—but new evidence shows that federal agents were plotting all along to use the operation as an opportunity to forfeit cash and other valuables.

Federal agents failed to disclose those plans to the federal magistrate judge who issued the warrant for the high-profile raid of U.S. Private Vaults, a private business in Beverly Hills, California, that had been the subject of an FBI investigation since at least 2019. When the raid took place, the FBI also seems to have ignored limitations imposed by the warrant, including an explicit prohibition against using the safe deposit boxes as the basis for further criminal investigations.

Those details regarding the planning and execution of the FBI's raid of U.S. Private Vaults are now out in the open after a different federal judge ruled this week that the government could not keep those details out of the public record. As Reason has extensively reported, the raid on U.S. Private Vaults resulted in federal agents seizing and attempting to forfeit more than $86 million in cash as well as gold, jewelry, and other valuables from property owners who were suspected of no crimes. Attorneys representing some plaintiffs who are trying to recover their possessions interviewed the FBI agents who planned the raid, but federal prosecutors tried to keep some details of those depositions redacted.

The unredacted legal documents, filed in federal court on Thursday, show why the government was eager to keep those details under wraps. (Reason submitted an amicus brief in the case arguing that the redacted documents should be made public.)

In the affidavit submitted as part of the effort to obtain a warrant for the search, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Brown wrote that federal agents intended to merely inventory the contents of the seized safe deposit boxes. But the newly unredacted documents show that the FBI had drawn up plans months earlier to forfeit property from the boxes, and failed to inform the magistrate judge about those plans.

"We had already determined that there was probable cause to move forward" with civil forfeiture proceedings against the contents of the safe deposit boxes before the search occurred, FBI Special Agent Jessie Murray said in a deposition, according to court documents.

Those crucial details were omitted from the affidavit submitted to the magistrate judge who granted the warrant that allowed the FBI to search U.S. Private Vaults. As Reason has previously detailed, that same warrant expressly forbade federal agents from engaging in a "criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety [sic] deposit boxes."

The newly unredacted documents suggest the FBI never intended to abide by that limitation.

Don’t know the depth of the original investigation into the company. But asset forfeiture is typically a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Gotta love the “seems to suggest”.
 
Don’t know the depth of the original investigation into the company. But asset forfeiture is typically a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Gotta love the “seems to suggest”.

in order to seize personal assets, it should have to be proven that they are fruits of criminal conduct, would it not? Or do you support the supreme power of the federal government to confiscate personal property of people that forces them to spend their money to prove they earned it honestly????????

But that is not the point of the post, you conveniently ignored. It's about the LYING TO A FEDERAL JUDGE to get the warrant...............
 
https://reason.com/2022/08/19/fbi-m...rant-to-seize-hundreds-of-safe-deposit-boxes/

New court documents show that the FBI planned for months to seize and forfeit property found inside safe deposit boxes in an L.A. raid under the pretext of doing an inventory.

The FBI told a federal magistrate judge that it intended to open hundreds of safe deposit boxes seized during a March 2021 raid in order to inventory the items inside—but new evidence shows that federal agents were plotting all along to use the operation as an opportunity to forfeit cash and other valuables.

Federal agents failed to disclose those plans to the federal magistrate judge who issued the warrant for the high-profile raid of U.S. Private Vaults, a private business in Beverly Hills, California, that had been the subject of an FBI investigation since at least 2019. When the raid took place, the FBI also seems to have ignored limitations imposed by the warrant, including an explicit prohibition against using the safe deposit boxes as the basis for further criminal investigations.

Those details regarding the planning and execution of the FBI's raid of U.S. Private Vaults are now out in the open after a different federal judge ruled this week that the government could not keep those details out of the public record. As Reason has extensively reported, the raid on U.S. Private Vaults resulted in federal agents seizing and attempting to forfeit more than $86 million in cash as well as gold, jewelry, and other valuables from property owners who were suspected of no crimes. Attorneys representing some plaintiffs who are trying to recover their possessions interviewed the FBI agents who planned the raid, but federal prosecutors tried to keep some details of those depositions redacted.

The unredacted legal documents, filed in federal court on Thursday, show why the government was eager to keep those details under wraps. (Reason submitted an amicus brief in the case arguing that the redacted documents should be made public.)

In the affidavit submitted as part of the effort to obtain a warrant for the search, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Brown wrote that federal agents intended to merely inventory the contents of the seized safe deposit boxes. But the newly unredacted documents show that the FBI had drawn up plans months earlier to forfeit property from the boxes, and failed to inform the magistrate judge about those plans.

"We had already determined that there was probable cause to move forward" with civil forfeiture proceedings against the contents of the safe deposit boxes before the search occurred, FBI Special Agent Jessie Murray said in a deposition, according to court documents.

Those crucial details were omitted from the affidavit submitted to the magistrate judge who granted the warrant that allowed the FBI to search U.S. Private Vaults. As Reason has previously detailed, that same warrant expressly forbade federal agents from engaging in a "criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety [sic] deposit boxes."

The newly unredacted documents suggest the FBI never intended to abide by that limitation.

Surprise. Those unredacted documents are nowhere to be found.
 
Asset forfeiture is merely one of the fascist components to American life.

Stop expecting civilized life.
We live in America, the inhabitants of which are apparently incapable of being civilized.
Stupid has serious limitations, and how do you get more stupid than electing Donald Trump to the presidency?

I hope that civilization can hold on in Europe for a little while longer, although that will be hard.
Anyplace else, the ship has already sailed. No chance.

Evolution has obviously been very late to replace humans with a smarter species, and now for this planet, it's obviously too late.
 
Asset forfeiture is merely one of the fascist components to American life.

Stop expecting civilized life.
We live in America, the inhabitants of which are apparently incapable of being civilized.
Stupid has serious limitations, and how do you get more stupid than electing Donald Trump to the presidency?
probably watching an enormous constituency that wailed about being ruled by old white men, electing an old white man to replace bad orange man, despite the large amount of allegations and evidence of misogyny and sexual harrassment?????
 
They weren't removed. They never existed. BS from Reason writers and you fell for it.

right..........you know what we call people who refuse to believe things that they can't physically see? FOOLS!!!!!!!

you will forever be lured along the ways of statism by government agents way smarter than you ROFL
 
in order to seize personal assets, it should have to be proven that they are fruits of criminal conduct, would it not? Or do you support the supreme power of the federal government to confiscate personal property of people that forces them to spend their money to prove they earned it honestly????????

But that is not the point of the post, you conveniently ignored. It's about the LYING TO A FEDERAL JUDGE to get the warrant...............

As I said, asset forfeiture is typically a civil matter. Preponderance not beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the warrant said that it was not to be used as evidence in future criminal matters, then civil forfeiture does not violate that, regardless of how you or I feel about it.

Comprende?
 
Back
Top