FBI Seized $900K from Safe Deposit Box on 'Pure Conjecture,' Federal Judge Says(reason.com)
reason.com
FBI Seized $900K from Safe Deposit Box on 'Pure Conjecture,' Federal Judge Says
https://reason.com/2021/07/29/fbi-seized-900000-from-safe-deposit-box-on-pure-conjecture-federal-judge-says/
9 comments
[deleted]
They sorely need oversight (with teeth). Grooming, instigating and then entrapping impressionable people, illegal seizures, ability to lie but then imprison people for "lying" to a federal agent... the list goes on. Sure, we need a national investigation unit, but it also needs oversight to prevent glaring abuses.
Special agents have a lot of power. I think many are running little fiefdoms of their own. My eyes opened when I heard about the plot to kidnap the governor of MI was actually led and instigated by FBI agents. It was reported by BuzzfeedNews.
It’s bizarre the things they cook up to “attract” people to honeypots that many of those people would never venture to.
We see the most egregious cases in the news , but that means there are many more less notable cases with the same degree of injustice for lots individuals who aren’t always bright.
It’s as unseemly as having some guy in highschool talking the slow girl in class to go out with him.
There are enough bad people trying to do bad things. Go after them, do it professionally. Not this “I got Martha for lying, gimme my promotion” quickie stuff.
We see the most egregious cases in the news , but that means there are many more less notable cases with the same degree of injustice for lots individuals who aren’t always bright.
It’s as unseemly as having some guy in highschool talking the slow girl in class to go out with him.
There are enough bad people trying to do bad things. Go after them, do it professionally. Not this “I got Martha for lying, gimme my promotion” quickie stuff.
Yeah I wonder how much safer we actually get when someone who's only criminal contact is with the FBI/Police, eg a 'terrorist' who only ever talked to, planned with, and bought for the police about or for their planned attack. Sure they probably didn't entrap them technically but it feels like it accomplishes very little except keeping people afraid and justifying the careers of agents.
Apart from civil rights concerns another problem is the possibility for a terrorist to get away from them. If you get some guys together and convince them to do some terrorist plot and give them the plans and maybe some of the tools - how possible is it that some number of them actually perpetrate a crime as a result and kill or hurt some innocent person?
And yet grown men jumped at the chance to kidnap the governor and took steps to enact it. I don't feel one whit of sympathy for such individuals, especially the militant proud boy types that preach white supremacy and violence. What balanced adult would go along with a kidnapping of a governor?
True, but not sure how much they really "jumped at the chance". The agents involved played a significant role in leading the effort. That's entrapment.
Sounds like you heard the sensationalized version. They knew about but we're contacted by someone who did not found it but became an informant and ultimately a leader because that person was ex-military and skilled. That was my understanding of how it was ultimately not successful.
The Buzzfeed article makes it seem like the FBI had a dozen plus informants controlling the plot at every level.
The asymmetry with respect to lying has always bothered me. In other words, the idea that a federal employee (not just law enforcement I believe) can lie to you with no legal consequences, yet, if you lie to them, the consequences are dire, truly bothers me at the core.
Extend this further to the fact that politicians suffer no consequences whatsoever for lying and you have a situation where the political class can manipulate and twist matters to fit their objectives, while, if you do the same, you can end-up in prison for a long time.
I have always felt this asymmetry is very wrong. Lying might have a place in law enforcement, for example, when infiltrating a human trafficking organization. No problem with that at all. It should, however, be treated like a warrant. In other words, a judge should authorize it and it should be documented.
This is a silly example but it is the only one I have from personal experience. When I was younger I got a speeding ticket that was a complete lie. The cops knew it. And, in fact, the wrote it down. It was something like going 35 in a 25 zone, when, in reality, the posted speed limit was 45. This cost me both time and money, even when the ticket was summarily dismissed by the judge when I showed pictures of the speed limit sign. What did not happen was some kind of consequence trickling down to the cops who pulled me over and lied about the entire thing --and were stupid enough to document the lie.
This isn't about being vindictive, I respect and appreciate cops, they do a job few of us would consider doing and it is hard. However, both cops and politicians should live by the same rules we have to live by. And, when it comes to lies, I could make a case that the consequences should be serious because they hold authority and power we don't have.
Extend this further to the fact that politicians suffer no consequences whatsoever for lying and you have a situation where the political class can manipulate and twist matters to fit their objectives, while, if you do the same, you can end-up in prison for a long time.
I have always felt this asymmetry is very wrong. Lying might have a place in law enforcement, for example, when infiltrating a human trafficking organization. No problem with that at all. It should, however, be treated like a warrant. In other words, a judge should authorize it and it should be documented.
This is a silly example but it is the only one I have from personal experience. When I was younger I got a speeding ticket that was a complete lie. The cops knew it. And, in fact, the wrote it down. It was something like going 35 in a 25 zone, when, in reality, the posted speed limit was 45. This cost me both time and money, even when the ticket was summarily dismissed by the judge when I showed pictures of the speed limit sign. What did not happen was some kind of consequence trickling down to the cops who pulled me over and lied about the entire thing --and were stupid enough to document the lie.
This isn't about being vindictive, I respect and appreciate cops, they do a job few of us would consider doing and it is hard. However, both cops and politicians should live by the same rules we have to live by. And, when it comes to lies, I could make a case that the consequences should be serious because they hold authority and power we don't have.
You’re not the only one who feels this way. What also bothers me is the fact that even slightly misremembering something you had previously said to law enforcement can be used as evidence of lying and perjury.
And we know that human memory and recollection is fallible. Prosecutors know this too. But government officials can freely abuse this in the name of getting a conviction.
I’ve never been able to look at the justice system the same way since watching “Don’t talk to the police”.
And we know that human memory and recollection is fallible. Prosecutors know this too. But government officials can freely abuse this in the name of getting a conviction.
I’ve never been able to look at the justice system the same way since watching “Don’t talk to the police”.
Yes, that is a presentation worth watching [0] and a follow-up [1]. Even as someone who is pro law enforcement, I have to keep in mind that their job does not always align with protecting you.
In other words, if they pull you over for speeding, the relationship isn't the same as the case where you might be asking a cop for directions or if you are engaging with them because you were a victim of a crime. In the first case they will use their training and knowledge against you to the extent necessary given the circumstances, the the other two cases they will be helpful and supportive.
I do not vilify police officers --the individuals-- for this. It is their job. This is what they do. They would not be doing the very difficult work they do every day if they did not, for example, gather evidence and use what suspects say as evidence, etc.
My problem is with asymmetry of the law as it pertains to lying. When a politician gets on TV and lies, and lies and lies --for years!--, suffering no consequences whatsoever, well, I just don't think that's right.
Thinking of this as an evolutionary process, if the fitness function responds positively to lies, the net result will be evolving towards a condition where lies are a normal part of how one gets ahead or survives. And this is precisely what we have.
Some might say: Well, politicians would not be able to say much on so many subjects if the absolute veracity of their statement was a requirement.
That's fine. I'd rather they shut the fuck up than lie to us with impunity. Or, more accurately, they would be forced to say things like "What I am about to say might not be accurate at all, I don't have first-hand information or supporting evidence for this", or something like that. Then they can go off and spew out their fabrications. Or, if they know they need to lie, they get a court order that allows them to do so on a very narrow basis.
Government works for us. We can't do well if they are lying to us with impunity.
I'll give you an example. We are about to spend an insane amount of money on roads, bridges, government buildings and who knows what else. One of the stories we hear is that we need this in order to be competitive. This is an absolute lie.
Why?
Name ten companies, in the last 50 years that opted not to locate their operations in the US due to the condition of our roads and bridges.
Can anyone produce this list?
No?
How about one? Just one?
No?
Roads and bridges are not the problem then. We need to invest in whatever is required to inshore some portion (because we can't do 100%) of the industrial based lost over the last 50. Semiconductors is a good example of this. Instead of burning cash we don't have on redoing perfectly good roads, we need to have a national objective to bring back semiconductor manufacturing, even if that means subsidizing it for ten years. This is just one example. There are dozens, hundreds, of sectors that need the same treatment. And yet politicians are lying to us every day with bullshit urgency about roads that we don't need fixed. Just a block away from our home about a quarter of a mile of a perfectly good avenue got ripped-up and repaved. I have lived here for more than twenty years. This avenue has been fine that entire time, no issues at all. Nothing. I asked neighbors. Nothing. Well, we just spent a non trivial amount of money "fixing" it, for no good reason at all.
Anyhow, the point is the asymmetry in this regard provides government and law enforcement with a great deal of power over us, whether that be to manipulate with impunity or incarcerate without consequence. This is wrong.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
In other words, if they pull you over for speeding, the relationship isn't the same as the case where you might be asking a cop for directions or if you are engaging with them because you were a victim of a crime. In the first case they will use their training and knowledge against you to the extent necessary given the circumstances, the the other two cases they will be helpful and supportive.
I do not vilify police officers --the individuals-- for this. It is their job. This is what they do. They would not be doing the very difficult work they do every day if they did not, for example, gather evidence and use what suspects say as evidence, etc.
My problem is with asymmetry of the law as it pertains to lying. When a politician gets on TV and lies, and lies and lies --for years!--, suffering no consequences whatsoever, well, I just don't think that's right.
Thinking of this as an evolutionary process, if the fitness function responds positively to lies, the net result will be evolving towards a condition where lies are a normal part of how one gets ahead or survives. And this is precisely what we have.
Some might say: Well, politicians would not be able to say much on so many subjects if the absolute veracity of their statement was a requirement.
That's fine. I'd rather they shut the fuck up than lie to us with impunity. Or, more accurately, they would be forced to say things like "What I am about to say might not be accurate at all, I don't have first-hand information or supporting evidence for this", or something like that. Then they can go off and spew out their fabrications. Or, if they know they need to lie, they get a court order that allows them to do so on a very narrow basis.
Government works for us. We can't do well if they are lying to us with impunity.
I'll give you an example. We are about to spend an insane amount of money on roads, bridges, government buildings and who knows what else. One of the stories we hear is that we need this in order to be competitive. This is an absolute lie.
Why?
Name ten companies, in the last 50 years that opted not to locate their operations in the US due to the condition of our roads and bridges.
Can anyone produce this list?
No?
How about one? Just one?
No?
Roads and bridges are not the problem then. We need to invest in whatever is required to inshore some portion (because we can't do 100%) of the industrial based lost over the last 50. Semiconductors is a good example of this. Instead of burning cash we don't have on redoing perfectly good roads, we need to have a national objective to bring back semiconductor manufacturing, even if that means subsidizing it for ten years. This is just one example. There are dozens, hundreds, of sectors that need the same treatment. And yet politicians are lying to us every day with bullshit urgency about roads that we don't need fixed. Just a block away from our home about a quarter of a mile of a perfectly good avenue got ripped-up and repaved. I have lived here for more than twenty years. This avenue has been fine that entire time, no issues at all. Nothing. I asked neighbors. Nothing. Well, we just spent a non trivial amount of money "fixing" it, for no good reason at all.
Anyhow, the point is the asymmetry in this regard provides government and law enforcement with a great deal of power over us, whether that be to manipulate with impunity or incarcerate without consequence. This is wrong.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
The state of New South Wales, Australia, has an independent "Law Enforcement Conduct Commission" whose explicit job is to investigate law enforcement misconduct (across all major state law enforcement agencies), and to refer cases to prosecutors. Some other Australian states have similar agencies. There is also a federal equivalent, the "Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity", although it does not appear to have been as effective as its state-based equivalents in uncovering law enforcement misconduct.
Maybe the US could copy the idea?
Maybe the US could copy the idea?
NSW also employed the Fixated Persons Unit (a terrorist task force) to arrest a journalist who was critical of John "Pork" Barilaro. So far, there's been no word from the "Law Enforcement Conduct Commission" on whether the arrest was lawful (hint: it wasn't) and nobody has been punished for it (yet - there is the defamation case on-going but the terrorist task force isn't involved in it)
> NSW also employed the Fixated Persons Unit (a terrorist task force) to arrest a journalist who was critical of John "Pork" Barilaro
A guy who worked for a YouTube comedian as a producer, and who allegedly was following a politician to public events and harassing him there, was arrested and charged with stalking. The "Fixated Persons Unit" has a broader mandate than purely terrorism offences, its mandate also extends to stalking and harassment of a "public office holder or internationally protected person, or other person/s nominated by the commissioner of police"
> So far, there's been no word from the "Law Enforcement Conduct Commission" on whether the arrest was lawful (hint: it wasn't)
LECC is unlikely to investigate an arrest while there is a pending criminal prosecution. For them to do so might be seen as interfering with the Court process.
I don't know if the arrest was legal or not. But the police unit which carried out the arrest is irrelevant to the question of its legality.
A guy who worked for a YouTube comedian as a producer, and who allegedly was following a politician to public events and harassing him there, was arrested and charged with stalking. The "Fixated Persons Unit" has a broader mandate than purely terrorism offences, its mandate also extends to stalking and harassment of a "public office holder or internationally protected person, or other person/s nominated by the commissioner of police"
> So far, there's been no word from the "Law Enforcement Conduct Commission" on whether the arrest was lawful (hint: it wasn't)
LECC is unlikely to investigate an arrest while there is a pending criminal prosecution. For them to do so might be seen as interfering with the Court process.
I don't know if the arrest was legal or not. But the police unit which carried out the arrest is irrelevant to the question of its legality.
For those interested, they captured footage of the arrest itself.
This is obviously only one side, but here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXtq4a8829g
This is obviously only one side, but here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXtq4a8829g
Heh. Victoria has the IBAC: https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au
They don't allow anonymous whistleblowing though, and all Tor traffic is blocked too.
It's all pretty much in line with "We say we're fighting corruption, but in reality Hell No... we have things in place to ensure it can't be stopped".
They don't allow anonymous whistleblowing though, and all Tor traffic is blocked too.
It's all pretty much in line with "We say we're fighting corruption, but in reality Hell No... we have things in place to ensure it can't be stopped".
> They don't allow anonymous whistleblowing though
Their website [0] says: "Complaints can be anonymous", "You can provide information anonymously"
> and all Tor traffic is blocked too
They also accept complaints by email, snail mail, and fax. One could use an anonymous emailer to contact them (Mixmaster, Mixminion, etc) over email.
> It's all pretty much in line with "We say we're fighting corruption, but in reality Hell No... we have things in place to ensure it can't be stopped".
I think it is more likely that the blocking Tor is most likely caused by the thoughtless cookie-cutter implementation of government cybersecurity "best practices", combined with a generous helping of technological cluelessness, as opposed to any nefarious motive. Hanlon's razor is apposite.
[0] https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/reporting-corruption/report
Their website [0] says: "Complaints can be anonymous", "You can provide information anonymously"
> and all Tor traffic is blocked too
They also accept complaints by email, snail mail, and fax. One could use an anonymous emailer to contact them (Mixmaster, Mixminion, etc) over email.
> It's all pretty much in line with "We say we're fighting corruption, but in reality Hell No... we have things in place to ensure it can't be stopped".
I think it is more likely that the blocking Tor is most likely caused by the thoughtless cookie-cutter implementation of government cybersecurity "best practices", combined with a generous helping of technological cluelessness, as opposed to any nefarious motive. Hanlon's razor is apposite.
[0] https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/reporting-corruption/report
> Their website [0] says: "Complaints can be anonymous", "You can provide information anonymously"
They say this, but the actual anonymity is based on them actually knowing who you are (after some back and forth)... then not disclosing it.
That's not really being anonymous, just a make believe fantasy version.
Good luck with that!
They say this, but the actual anonymity is based on them actually knowing who you are (after some back and forth)... then not disclosing it.
That's not really being anonymous, just a make believe fantasy version.
Good luck with that!
Look at their PDF complaint form [0] – saying who you are is optional. First question is whether you want to be anonymous, and if you answer "Yes", it tells you to skip all the questions about who you are.
Their complaint form doesn't support your claims about them.
[0] https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/docs/default-source/complaint-fo...
Their complaint form doesn't support your claims about them.
[0] https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/docs/default-source/complaint-fo...
Again, did you miss the "(after some back and forth)" piece in my previous comment.
If you're in any way unsure, then go and try it. After a while, you'll find out you're not anonymous, and are relying on them to provide anonymity. eg it's a fantasy
If you're in any way unsure, then go and try it. After a while, you'll find out you're not anonymous, and are relying on them to provide anonymity. eg it's a fantasy
> Again, did you miss the "(after some back and forth)" piece in my previous comment.
I didn't miss it. How can there be any "back and forth" if you fill out the form anonymously? They can't contact you for back and forth because you aren't giving them any contact details for that.
If you print the PDF form out and snail mail it, they can't find out who you are, unless they engage in some kind of forensic investigation (tracing the printer, DNA testing, etc). Or you could fill it out electronically and email it to them using an anonymous remailer.
> If you're in any way unsure, then go and try it. After a while, you'll find out you're not anonymous, and are relying on them to provide anonymity. eg it's a fantasy
Did you try?
I didn't miss it. How can there be any "back and forth" if you fill out the form anonymously? They can't contact you for back and forth because you aren't giving them any contact details for that.
If you print the PDF form out and snail mail it, they can't find out who you are, unless they engage in some kind of forensic investigation (tracing the printer, DNA testing, etc). Or you could fill it out electronically and email it to them using an anonymous remailer.
> If you're in any way unsure, then go and try it. After a while, you'll find out you're not anonymous, and are relying on them to provide anonymity. eg it's a fantasy
Did you try?
But whose job is it to investigate misconduct by these Comissions?
In the case of the NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC), its conduct is inspected by a separate agency known as the Office of the Inspector of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (OILECC). And OILECC's conduct, in turn, is reviewable by the NSW Ombudsman. And all three (LECC, OILECC and the Ombudsman) are overseen by a parliamentary committee.
and how's that working out for these unfortunate folks?
Who are "these unfortunate folks"? Kristo Langker?
As I said above, LECC isn't going to investigate the arrest of Langker while Langker's criminal prosecution is pending. In the event that Langker is acquitted or the prosecution otherwise discontinued, it is possible then that LECC will investigate. We can't judge LECC based on this episode because legally it is too early for it to be involved.
As I said above, LECC isn't going to investigate the arrest of Langker while Langker's criminal prosecution is pending. In the event that Langker is acquitted or the prosecution otherwise discontinued, it is possible then that LECC will investigate. We can't judge LECC based on this episode because legally it is too early for it to be involved.
no, you said it was "unlikely"
all this aside, how about some sympathy for innocents caught up in this unconstitutional dragnet? does the 4th amendment even exist anymore once the feds get involved?
all this aside, how about some sympathy for innocents caught up in this unconstitutional dragnet? does the 4th amendment even exist anymore once the feds get involved?
What are we talking about here? The article about the FBI seizing $900K from a safe deposit box? Or Australian police arresting the producer of a YouTube comedian? I said, with respect to the second, that LECC was unlikely to investigate while the criminal case was still pending. That has absolutely nothing to do with "the 4th amendment" – the US constitution does not apply in Australia.
The part that really gets me is that the warrant for bade them from seizing the boxes, and the FBI did it anyways. It might be a technicality to some, but we must hold the government accountable in all of its misdeeds. I am not a lawyer, but from what is written in this article, it seems the government has grossly overstepped when it could have achieved its goals legally. However that would require them to show cause, which avoidance of this basic and fundamental tenant, is very suspect.
> However that would require them to show cause
They can always fabricate cause. I got pulled over last week (I wasn't speeding or anything, I just had out of state plates visiting a friend). When I didn't consent to have him search my vehicle, he walked a dog around my car and fabricated probable cause. I don't do drugs and there have never been drugs in my car, and yet he said the dog "reacted"... Of course he didn't find anything - there was nothing to find. No ticket, just 30-40 minutes of him going through all my possessions.
I guess I should be grateful he didn't "seize" something or shoot me.
They can always fabricate cause. I got pulled over last week (I wasn't speeding or anything, I just had out of state plates visiting a friend). When I didn't consent to have him search my vehicle, he walked a dog around my car and fabricated probable cause. I don't do drugs and there have never been drugs in my car, and yet he said the dog "reacted"... Of course he didn't find anything - there was nothing to find. No ticket, just 30-40 minutes of him going through all my possessions.
I guess I should be grateful he didn't "seize" something or shoot me.
30-40 min is illegal
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-police-use-dogs-...
>an officer who doesn't have reasonable suspicion may not extend a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. The officer who pulls a driver over may not prolong the detention "beyond the time reasonably required to complete" the stop's "mission."
you could sue
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-police-use-dogs-...
>an officer who doesn't have reasonable suspicion may not extend a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. The officer who pulls a driver over may not prolong the detention "beyond the time reasonably required to complete" the stop's "mission."
you could sue
Funny because a friend of mine had his kid pulled over for rolling through a stop sign, the cop saw smoking paraphernalia in the center console (weed is not legal here), just told them "keep that stuff out of sight, boys" and gave them a warning for the stop sign.
Not sure what's funny about it... The cop told me two or three times that he wasn't interested in "small amounts". (Although they're allowed to lie to you.) I told him I didn't have any amount. I guess middle-age guys (like me) driving minivans with out of state plates through a flyover state is suspicious?!?
How do you get pulled over for out of state plates? That doesn't seem like something you should have a traffic stop for.
[deleted]
I think one of the big flaws with our legal system is a paradigm of “this is that” kind of thinking.
How do you get around the spirit of a law? Well you claim what you did was something else because the law doesn’t mention that other thing. It wasn’t a search, it was just conjecture. Sure the end effect was the same but this is a totally different thing.
How do you get around the spirit of a law? Well you claim what you did was something else because the law doesn’t mention that other thing. It wasn’t a search, it was just conjecture. Sure the end effect was the same but this is a totally different thing.
They were actually allowed to seize the boxes just not to search the contents. They had an indictment against the business itself but not against the actual customers. The entire business is setup to hide assets so they probably figured they could bootstrap cases against the customers who were probably up to something. In reality they probably just collected a ton of incriminating evidence that's going to be inadmissible.
I was there during the raid which was multiple days. FBI setup a mobile command center and had dozens of agents there.
On a separate issue, a person who ran a Trump group on IRC threatened to kill my family but in an inert way: “I look forward to watching your mom [violent threat].”
This individual, allegedly a hacker, then fabricated a threat to the FBI. A few days later, 2 FBI agents showed up at my residence and asked my property manager if I was violent. They laughed at them.
I spoke to them moments after this and they realized the claim was a lie. And “closed my case”. I gave the FBI the person’s cell phone. The one agent emailed me saying where the person was located but no updates. 5-months later nothing happened.
Then this so-called hacker emailed anti-Semitic threats and emailed a message to the FBI agent and copied me. I confronted the FBI agent over this and asked if this individual was an FBI informant or agent.
Considering this person is monitoring hacker groups, now impersonating me, and emailing FBI agents messages signed with “Hitler”, even though they have this person Verizon phone number, is incredibly sketchy.
Beyond that, there’s been so many FBI scandals that it’s beginning to be embarrassing. I’m not scared of corrupt dumb people regardless if they have a federal badge.
On a separate issue, a person who ran a Trump group on IRC threatened to kill my family but in an inert way: “I look forward to watching your mom [violent threat].”
This individual, allegedly a hacker, then fabricated a threat to the FBI. A few days later, 2 FBI agents showed up at my residence and asked my property manager if I was violent. They laughed at them.
I spoke to them moments after this and they realized the claim was a lie. And “closed my case”. I gave the FBI the person’s cell phone. The one agent emailed me saying where the person was located but no updates. 5-months later nothing happened.
Then this so-called hacker emailed anti-Semitic threats and emailed a message to the FBI agent and copied me. I confronted the FBI agent over this and asked if this individual was an FBI informant or agent.
Considering this person is monitoring hacker groups, now impersonating me, and emailing FBI agents messages signed with “Hitler”, even though they have this person Verizon phone number, is incredibly sketchy.
Beyond that, there’s been so many FBI scandals that it’s beginning to be embarrassing. I’m not scared of corrupt dumb people regardless if they have a federal badge.
>I’m not scared of corrupt dumb people regardless if they have a federal badge.
i envy you
i envy you
Don't forget the "probable cause" for lost gold either.
https://youtu.be/h-fGAqAfozM
Steve Lehto has a whole series on the safe deposit box scandal and some other FBI cases that are pretty insane.
Slightly off topic but very informative YouTube Video.
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
That reminds me of this article: Illinois Is The 1st State To Tell Police They Can't Lie To Minors In Interrogations: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16/1016710927/illinois-is-the-fi...
Or as the old saying goes: "Possession is 12 tenths of the Law"