Don't ever take anymore than $1000 in the car. Cops will steal it under the false claim of "investigating the source of the money."
110 2017-10-01 by LightBringerFlex
Most will never see the money again.
This behavior against the good, hardworking and financially struggling citizens of the US is a travesty, treason, and a crime against humanity.
They are extracting what little money is left in the economic pool and using that money to militarize the police so they can one day use a police army to go against the people.
This law they made allowing them to legally steal from citizens is another example of why we need to stop listening to their complicated laws and start creating a new, practical and easy to understand set of laws for the people to follow. (It's not as hard as it seems.)
Another example of their corrupt laws are the ones signed by Obama which allows places like the Red Cross to steal donated money and supplies legally which they have been doing in Houston after the hurricane. They pocketed most of the money and either sold off or even dumped most of the donated merchandise. Nobody can stop this travesty because it is legal to do.
These pedophile satanists don't care about right or wrong when they write these laws. All they care about is money and power over the 99%
Also, all the good cops need to expose these things to the public. It takes courage to do the right thing and from what I understand, most cops have courage.
27 comments
1 sickofallofyou 2017-10-01
The Canadian government warns it's citizens that American cops are thieves and will jack your shit.
1 mastermind04 2017-10-01
I remember reading that. It's pretty bad when your closet neighbouring county has to notify there citizens about how corrupt the cops and law are.
1 WarlordBeagle 2017-10-01
US cops have become like Mexican cops that we used to make fun of because they were corrupt.
1 Zenyx_ 2017-10-01
It's US law that you can carry up to $2000 on you in cash legally. It's really stupid, but it makes you wonder why they force you to put it in banks.
1 mymobileredditacct 2017-10-01
Do you have a source for that ? Not that I don't believe you just can't find anything about that
1 Zenyx_ 2017-10-01
It might be a state thing too. I think my state in particular has that law. Also I could be wrong, I was just told this by my family.
1 Coconuthead93 2017-10-01
I carried $3750 When I bought my car off Craigslist?
My bank sure was asking me questions about it..
1 ElectroFlannelGore 2017-10-01
I used to have a good paying kob but worked long, hard hours.... Used to deposit thousands of dollars in paychecks all at once when I got around to it..... Then I'd take a shitload out to pay for groceries/etc/fun/whatever I need because I didn't have a credit card and was in an abusive relationship and couldn't be fucked to get a secured card I know I know I fucked up badly..... But anyways yeah bank real tired of that shit. I told them the score, they kept having to harass me.... Cops used to stop and check my work bag and either find money/checks... They were always trying to figure out what my deal was. I told them. I work a lot, my life sucks, j have a lot of money, have to use cash. Sorry I'm tired and rambling.
1 abellaviola 2017-10-01
Oh shit, am I on some sort of list for doing this? I took out ~$10,000 and closed my bank account when I turned 18, and then just lived off of the cash for a long time. I didn't open another account for about a year and a half when my job switched from checks that I could take in and get cashed, to direct deposit.
1 kidpolymath 2017-10-01
Not a troll but I'd really like to hear about the law allowing Red Cross to do that.
1 LightBringerFlex 2017-10-01
Check on YouTube or my post history for a video of a lady from Houston explaining what's happening on Houston.
1 shoesmith74 2017-10-01
They do this under civil asset forfeiture laws. It's legalized theft.
1 Kind_Of_A_Dick 2017-10-01
What are you talking about? No, seriously, what are you talking about? I'm not attacking you with this reply or anything like that, I'm actually curious about how you expect this to play out.
1 LightBringerFlex 2017-10-01
Check this video out:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GfiFvFKNt3Y
1 Kind_Of_A_Dick 2017-10-01
I'm more referring to the bit about ignoring their laws and making our own. How do you expect that to work and play out? Does the video speak specifically about that idea?
1 murphy212 2017-10-01
Natural law. No initiation of violence. Quite simple, really, as the truth tends to be.
If armed men who like to dress-up in costumes think random scribblings made by other men who like to dress-up in robes give them the right to initiate violence, they must be shown otherwise.
The day "civil forfeiture" becomes a high-risk activity for those doing the "forfeiting", it will stop.
Being a stormtrooper ("cop") is not nearly dangerous enough.
1 LightBringerFlex 2017-10-01
So we will need to have a replacement ready in case this cabal melts down overnight because if they do, the whole legal system will be a mess. Here is what I propose.
The judge should be a legal expert of sorts. Her job as a judge will no longer be the same. She will be more of an organizer than anything. She will be the one who breaks down the rules to the jury so that the jury know what they are doing.
The jury will always be an instataneous group of random civilians that will prop up when there is a dispute in society. We can recruit juries in a similar way as we do now or we can upgrade it but whatever happens, they need to be on hand all the time and they always have to be random. There has to be a limit to how long a jury member can stay on-board. Something like a 2 week limit unless one of the cases goes to trial seems fair. If a case goes to trial, the jury member has to stay until that trial is over.
In society, disputes break out all the time. If the people involved in the dispute can't figure out a fair resolution, they can call the police. The police can help resolve the dispute for them but the victim is allowed to press charges on the assailant. Every single "crime" is a unique incident so we have to take things as we go. Sometimes the police can help resolve a small dispute. Other times, the assailant will have to be arrested and put into a cell because he is a danger to society.
If the victim or the police press charges on the assailant, that assailant will have to see a jury. The 1st job of the jury will be to hear each case and decide if a trial is worth it or not. For example, a person can press charges on an assailant that slapped him. The jury may decide that this isn't a big deal and should be cleared up by the assailant and the victim. Or, the jury may accept the case such as one where an angry man who was drunk and broke out a storefront window. The jury will have the power to do this. This way, when people abuse the system by pressing charges for bullshit, the jury will overturn it and dismiss the case. I think it is best to keep the jury out in the open rather than in a secretive room. We need to push as much transparency as possible. The jury has nothing to hide and should work out in the open.
If the jury decides to take the case, the assailant can please guilty or not guilty. We can't do any deals anymore. As of now, if a person claims guilty up front, they can a better deal. Instead, we should just let the individual pick guilty or not guilty depending on what he so wills.
If the assailant says guilty, the jury will have to figure out a way to remedy the situation and possible rehabilitation. For example, the assailant might have to pay for the storefront window that he broke and apologize to the store owner. Although the apology doesn't seem like a big deal, it is a form of rehabilitation and will help society. The jury can also push educational rehab onto the assailant which can be in-house or out-house rehab. In-house will be for the more ignorant criminals who need to be taught right and wrong like a child. The out-patient rehab might be something a person has to attend a few hours a week at some location. These educational rehab centers will be run by love instead of fear. These assailants need love to be rehabilitated. Treating them like shit makes them worst and that is what we do right now in society.
If the assailant says "not guilty", then we run a trial. The assailant can choose to have a lawyer or no lawyer but laws will be much simpler in the new system so a lot of people won't need a lawyer.
At the end of the trial, the jury decides guilt and if they find guilt, they generate an idea, out in the open (not in backroom doors) for a remedy to the issue and a potential stint in educational rehab.
The laws themselves have to be based on a few point. 1st, we need to understand that we cannot legislate morality. We have millions of laws and yet all this crime. 2nd, we need to understand that the opposite of control is NOT chaos. All this control isn't keeping criminals down. The only thing that keeps crime down is a good economy. We need to actually generate a solid economy so that people don't commit crime. 3rd, everyone knows right from wrong for the most part. This can be demonstrated by the fact that even the worst gangsters act like good boys around their parents or even their kids/wives. There are only a few people like those with Aspergers who don't really understand right from wrong because they are mentally impaired. Instead of having millions of external laws, we need to focus on a human beings internal moral compass. Whenever a victim presses charges on an assailant, they need to simply state what they believe was a violation of "common law" and then rely on the jury to make the right decision on taking the case or not. Common law can be the whole of the law but we may need a few other laws to clarify the most complex portions of society. Everyone except the very mentally impaled understand common law. Common law will eliminate all the circuses that occur in court when high powered attorneys manipulate the law by manipulating the wording of the law. Instead, a random group of human beings (the jury) will decide whether the case is worth taking, the verdict, and the remedy to the problem.
Also, as with everything, this system has to be dynamic, not static. All systems that are static will eventually fail. Only dynamically changing systems end up surviving. A fair way to upgrade the system from time to time is to cast a vote. If someone has a good idea on improving the court process, they can pitch it to be voted on, and a 2/3 vote from the people will qualify it to be implemented into law. That way, it is fair and not run by some Illuminati controlled puppet in government.
(Also, that video is something else. I misunderstood your original post.)
1 Kind_Of_A_Dick 2017-10-01
I appreciate the lengthy reply, and I will take the time later to give it a proper read. Just from a quick glance I think you're skipping the "ignore their laws" bit, which is important because that can get real messy. Still, you've given enough effort into your reply that I'm fine with that.
A couple things did stick out, the first being about the jury being out in the open. Unless you're starting from a fresh group of humans you just genetically engineered, our current society loves reality shows and that is exactly what you'll turn that jury deliberation into. While they do not have anything to hide, it would be prudent to preserve the privacy of the process. Otherwise Juror #6 is going to become "That Total Bitch Sheena Who Thought Lucas Was Guilty!", and potentially ruin the rest of her life.
The second was just a disagreement in that knowing right from wrong in a legal sense has absolutely nothing to do with Asperger's.
1 LightBringerFlex 2017-10-01
The negatives of secrecy is corruption. We have to decide what is the lesser of 2 evils.
Transperancy needs to spread far and wide into all governments. Many will have excuses as to why it's a bad idea but it will eliminate most of the problems of people scheming and scamming us in secrecy.
1 digdog303 2017-10-01
Hey everyone, look at this fat cat with his 1000 dollars and a car!
1 PreachyVegan 2017-10-01
1000$ AND a car! must be a baller criminal!!
1 Aye_or_Nay 2017-10-01
Once upon a time, there was a land in America we used to call "home"... There, there was freedom and there was responsibility.
A few remember it. Some can still find books about it, understand it.
Then the banks thrashed the economy until the government was held hostage by recurring recessions and crashes and they were tricked into forming a central bank that was private and put everything under title as collateral. Statutory laws now ruled the people's lives, rather than common law, which was simple and based on freedom and responsibility, instead of rules and fines, protecting the state.
Now, people call for another way. But that was the old way. It was here and we lost it. That way is in the past. Gone.
Now, it all belongs to the state. You have only a certificate of title. You pay taxes to use "your own" property. Cars, Boats, your home, your land, the fish, the game....even "your" income - They all belong to the state. Now does it make sense?
Welcome to your new "home" where nothing is your's.
The Homeland
1 LightBringerFlex 2017-10-01
Then there was so much corruption that it woke up the sleeping masses who used their hive mind to topple the cabal and reclaim their world.
1 Aye_or_Nay 2017-10-01
I hope I live to see it.
Those Fuckers
1 hobogoblin 2017-10-01
I think that pointing out specifics will help our cause greatly. I'm actually thinking of putting together a maybe part or hell maybe even a book.
Could you help me out, if you know it, with with laws you are referring to? Like CA SB192 or something. Id love to release a book that just lists law after law after law and wires the little hidden BS they put in there. They will these laws about "saving the education system" and then oh yeah oh page 296 of 1072 in paragraph 7 we happen to also mention that it's now legal to use electric shock as an interrogation tactic in cases of blah blah blah.
1 iceberg_sweats 2017-10-01
I got pulled over late one night coming home from my girl's place. I was trying to get her to take a spontaneous vacation with me so I had a few thousand dollars cash in hand to make my point. For some reason I tucked it behind my back when I got in my car and COMPLETELY forgot about it when I got pulled over. I also had weed all over my shorts from rolling up earlier. The cop noticed the weed and the money. I told him about my night and he let me go with just a warning. I was shocked how nonchalant he was about the money.
1 abellaviola 2017-10-01
There goes your credibility. It's possible to spread truths without petty name calling. It makes it sound like you're more focused on putting certain groups of people down instead of spreading the word or talking about your theories.
1 swordofdamocles42 2017-10-01
just fyi. there is a difference between legal and lawful..... :)
1 PreachyVegan 2017-10-01
1000$ AND a car! must be a baller criminal!!