[ExI] cart before horse

[spike at rainier66.com]

>…Why isn't that law unconstitutional?  It assumes that a person is guilty of drug dealing with no proof but the money.  bill w

 

Billw, the way this evolved is from when a car was seized after the authorities were alerted by an informant.  The car was found to contain a trunk full of cash.  The constables wait for someone to come along an claim the car, but of course no one ever does.  The courts rules that the sheriff gets to keep the cash.

 

Hey, such a deal!

 

>From that, we get cash sniffing dogs.  Find car full of cash, wait for someone to come along, no one does.  The sheriff keeps the cash.

 

>From that, they pull over a “suspicious looking” vehicle, dogs find cash, driver claims she was hired to drive the car somewhere, knows nothing about the cash.  OK then, she can run along now, sheriff keeps the cash.

 

The ruling evolved to the point where anyone carrying a lotta cash is a suspect.  

 

It is a short step from that to anyone with a lotta cash in their house is a suspect, and from that, anyone with BitCoin is a suspect.

 

Power corrupts.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210916/3fcfec7f/attachment.htm>