Horrible: Nail Salon Owner Sues For Return Of Life Savings Seized By DEA Agents At Airport
And guess what: Chances are, he'll never see a dime of it. And he's probably already spent money trying to get it back.
Tim Cushing writes at TechDirt about yet another crime by government thugs against a citizen -- one they have no evidence was engaged in any wrongdoing.
The victim is Vu Do, owner of two nail salons in New York City. He had nearly $44K taken from him by DEA thugs at JFK -- money he said took him over 20 years to save up.
The guy must have a bozo as his lawyer, because there's an error in his complaint -- saying that he didn't know there's a federal regulation against carrying more than $5K in cash. Well, there isn't. And though there's a reporting requirement if you're taking more than $10K in or out of the country, there isn't one when you're traveling within the United States, as Do was. As Cushing notes:
The complaint points out that Do has run two legitimate businesses in NYC for several years, and not once has he been arrested or even charged for violations of controlled substances laws.Nevertheless, the DEA took all of Do's money under the assumption that he's involved in the drug business, despite being more than willing to let him go without even a citation. Do had planned to take his money to California to help his financially-struggling siblings out, but ran into the DEA first.
We should change the Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty to something along these lines:
Give me your tired, your poor; let them work their asses off for decades to make good in America; and then steal their money from them and laugh at them when they ask, "Hey, what about 'innocent till proven guilty'?"
Answer: Sorry, Bub -- you've got to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more) proving that the money wasn't earned through drug sales.
Not surprisingly, Do, an immigrant (I'd guess, and maybe not so hot in the speaking English department), didn't quite figure out the legal game on this in time:
According to this chart, Do has no shot at reclaiming his money. He had a certain amount of time to challenge this seizure (until April 30, according to the DEA's administrative seizure notice) and his June 17 lawsuit falls well outside that time limit. Not being "timely" is pretty much an instant loss.If so, that's 20 years worth of savings headed towards ensuring the DEA has the funding to keep seizing cash from travelers. Despite its best efforts, an actual drug trafficker will occasionally stumble into the agency's sticky grasp, inadvertently legitimizing the whole crooked program. I can't imagine the DEA looks forward to encounters with actual criminals, seeing as it involves arrests and a whole bunch of additional paperwork. Cash is king. And as long as asset forfeiture programs remain in effect, government agencies will prefer the easy busts of "guilty" money over the more legitimate effort of removing criminals from the streets.
I predict -- just a guess here -- that somebody this is done to will snap, violently, and this will be what ends up bringing an end to this asset theft aka "forfeiture" by the government.
It's just so disgusting. I want to go find Do and tell him, "This is not what this country's about."
Except...yes it is.
This is all done through the executive power of the President and the Attorney General. Their signatures just as well be on the order of seizure. And they claim they speak for America when this is done. We sure don't have much for leadership lately Back in 2008 I remember some people were hoping for change.
How about a few bad jokes to pass the time until Obama is out of office (569 days, 20 hrs, 35 min.)
It's not Vu they want. It's his Do(ugh).
If Vu had the same thing happen to him in Vietnam 20 years ago, now he's got deja Vu all over again.
Holder ordered an end to civil forfeiture without a warrant/charge (Jan. 2015). By then he must have stolen enough money to fund his retirement.
Loretta Lynch is the new AG. Her prior office (Eastern Dist. of N.Y.)took in almost a billion in forfeitures in 2013. So she took a bite out of the Big Apple. Now she wants the whole pie.
Canvasback at June 30, 2015 1:43 AM
If I thought that the next President, Democrat or Republican, would push for and sign a law banning asset forfeiture, it would be different. But as far as I can tell, the leadership of both parties is all in for asset forfeiture. Only a handful of mavricks in Washington, like Ron Wydon and Rand Paul, are opposed to it, and they don't have much sway within their parties.
Cousin Dave at June 30, 2015 6:58 AM
This sounds outrageous, off the top, but I have a legitimate question, here. What reason could you have for carrying $40,000 around? Not should you have a right to, but just...have you never heard of a bank?
Allison at June 30, 2015 7:09 AM
Allison..."What reason could you have for carrying $40,000 around? Not should you have a right to, but just...have you never heard of a bank?"
What if you are an immigrant from a country where The Authorities (including the banks) are not to be trusted?
David Foster at June 30, 2015 7:33 AM
@ Allison - no offence, but your question is not 'legitimate', because what others might choose to do with their property is, quite simply, none of your damned business.
And nor, for that matter, does any agent of the state. This creeping creation of 'presumptive' crimes which have no victim and no negative outcome for anybody - you're carrying more cash than we think you should - you're doing something someone else thinks is not very nice or not very smart - you ought to do this, that, or the other thing with your own property instead of what you are doing with it - your kids are not sufficiently supervised - is one of the greatest present threats to our liberties.
Butt out. Mind your own business. You simply have no 'legitimate' reason to ask such a question. And no person should ever have to answer such a question, from you, or from anybody else.
Again, no offence intended, just trying to be transparently clear.
llater,
llamas
llamas at June 30, 2015 9:37 AM
llamas, philosophically, I get you. We should have the human right to do whatever the hell we want that dosn't hurt anyone else. But it's still a legitimate question.
Allison at June 30, 2015 9:44 AM
He should have told them that he was an illegal. Then he'd be untouchable.
Cousin Dave at June 30, 2015 9:53 AM
Allison's question may be legit, but the answer is still, "None of your business."
For some people, what use are banks, anyway? If you don't have the right account, they're more likely to charge you a fee to keep your money than pay you interest on it. And thieves can clean out your account.
ahw at June 30, 2015 11:35 AM
But it's still a legitimate question.
Perhaps, but not in any way germane to the facts that the money was wrongfully seized by those with no business taking it.
DrCos at June 30, 2015 2:08 PM
Leave a comment