A troubling statement from my bank...

[jtryka]

I just got a "Change in Terms" flier in my bank statement from Washington Mutual, and in it, it had the following statement:

 

STORAGE OF CASH IN SAFEBOXES:

Effective immediately, safeboxes shall not be used for the storage of coin or currency.

 

I know that most banks prohibt storing normal cash in boxes due to anti-hoarding laws, but the broadness of this language leads me to believe that you can no longer store your collection in a safe deposit box at WaMu. That seems extreme, has anyone else heard of this? Luckily I moved my boxes to another bank last year, so it doesn't directly effect me, but if this is the start of a trend I might need to buy a safe!

[TomB]

I have my collection split up and stored in two separate branches of the same bank. There are times when I simply want to drop something into my box, and at these times I ask if I can open my box, with the teller present, within the locked bank vault instead of going to a private room. The tellers allow me to do this as they all know me, however, they turn their backs to me while in the vault. I have told them that I don't care if they know what is in each box and their reply was that it is bank policy to not allow customers to store cash in the boxes. Therefore, if they turn their backs, then they can state that they did not see any cash in a box. I asked about storing rare coins and the answer was that the bank had no policy against this, it was only against storing face-value spendable cash.

[braddick]

If currency is legal to own why would a bank care if it is kept in the safety deposit box?

[Wihlborg]

braddick,

 

I don’t know for sure, but this is probably meant for someone who is trying to keep tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the safety of a bank, but who doesn’t want the government to know about it. The governments attitude may be that if you have nothing to hide about where the money came from, than why would you not put it into some type of interest bearing account instead of hording it in a safe deposit box where they don’t know about it.

 

John

 

[TonerGuy]

You can thank the Patriot Act for that! Just another way for the government to track your money and try to get their tax dollars out of you.

 

Michael

[braddick]

braddick,

 

I don’t know for sure, but this is probably meant for someone who is trying to keep tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the safety of a bank, but who doesn’t want the government to know about it. The governments attitude may be that if you have nothing to hide about where the money came from, than why would you not put it into some type of interest bearing account instead of hording it in a safe deposit box where they don’t know about it.

 

John

Thanks John,

I'll know now to keep it all in a shoebox under my bed.

[EZ_E]

braddick,

 

 

The governments attitude may be that if you have nothing to hide about where the money came from, than why would you not put it into some type of interest bearing account instead of hording it in a safe deposit box where they don’t know about it.

 

John

 

...because banks can sometimes become insolvent is my guess.

[jtryka]

Well, it's really not the Patriot act, the rules for reporting currency transactions in excess of $10,000 has been in place for years. That is probably the source of this rule, but to word it so broadly makes no sense. The wording I use above is a direct quote, so it doesn't limit it to US coin and currency, just any coin or currency. Does that mean the 1000 RM I have from 1911? How about all the pre-euro bills that I have in my box? What about my 50 peso gold piece? Under such broad wording, all would be prohibited from storage in a box at WaMu. That is the problem I see.

[TonerGuy]

Well, it's really not the Patriot act

 

Yes, it is, go ask WaMu. I bank with them and have asked, The reporting laws have been around for years, only now, after the passage of the Patriot Act have banks changed their policies.

 

The Patriot Act is the most UNpatriotic law ever conceived or passed by an administration. It is without question a law that tramples all over Consitutional rights. It should be and needs to be repealed immediately.

 

Michael

[jtryka]

Michael,

 

There was a very good editorial in the Wall Street Journal last week on the Patriot Act, and the rampant mis-information on the act itself that has circulated lately. The simple truth is that most of the provisions of the act have been in place for quite some time, and the biggest change in the law, is that information gathered under previous laws may now be shared among different governement agencies. Can you name specific provisions of the act that have changed previous laws which now trample your rights? I for one would like to hear them. Coming in and spouting off hyperbole doesn't lend much credence to your opinion for those of us who appreciate facts and logical arguments. What specific Constitutional rights have been "trampled?" Can you cite the sections of the law responsible for the trampling? Personally, when it comes to trampling my Constitutional rights, I am far more worried about the 9 insufficiently_thoughtful_persons in black robes up the street from the White House.

 

Yes, it is, go ask WaMu. I bank with them and have asked, The reporting laws have been around for years, only now, after the passage of the Patriot Act have banks changed their policies.

 

Who did you speak to? Was it someone in charge or a teller or uninformed telephone rep? Do you really think that before the Patriot Act all banks just ignored the cash reporting laws? If that's the case, WaMu could be in trouble with the fines involved there. And by the way, my bank hasn't changed their policy, they still prohibit hoarding of cash in safe deposit boxes, but they do not have a blanket prohibition of storing coin or currency of any type in boxes.

[gmarguli]

I just got a "Change in Terms" flier in my bank statement from Washington Mutual, and in it, it had the following statement:

 

STORAGE OF CASH IN SAFEBOXES: Effective immediately, safeboxes shall not be used for the storage of coin or currency.

 

I have a box at WaMu and regardless of what their rules are about what can be stored in the box, they don't know what I have in my box.

 

Even if how you interpret what they saw is correct, which I don't think you did, it really doesn't matter - not unless they can see thru 3 inches of steel.

[jom]

Coming in and spouting off hyperbole doesn't lend much credence to your opinion for those of us who appreciate facts and logical arguments. What specific Constitutional rights have been "trampled?"

 

I agree. I'm undecided on this issue and I'd like to hear more about it either way. Please elaborate...because it IS an important issue.

 

jom

[SilverEagleCoins]

I don't have a safe deposit box so I don't exactly know what the rules are if they get ripped off or destroyed. If coins aren't allowed in there then I guess you may be unprotected to file a claim if something does happen.

[TonerGuy]

What specific Constitutional rights have been "trampled?" Can you cite the sections of the law responsible for the trampling?

 

Are you kiddin' me? I don't possibly have enough time to respond to this. There are far too many ways in which the Patriot Act allows the government into places it just shouldn't be in. I for one believe that government has NO right to invade my privacy for any reason -- compelling governmental interest or not. I fear the impingement of the Bill of Rights much more then the possibility of a terroristic threat or attack.

 

Perhaps just a link to the government's own investigation and report into civil liberties/rights violations might answer your questions though. And remember, this is a very limited look at the Patriot Act and it's potential for serious human rights violations.

 

DOJ/Inspector General Report to Congress on Civil Rights Violations USA Patriot Act

 

Enjoy reading it, it requires PDF and is 24 pages long. Even the United States government is aware of the violations, so should every American citizen!

 

And, while everyone should already know this, don't believe everything you read in the Wall Street Journal. They do have an agenda. Everyone should be able to learn to decipher between facts and opinions. And don't believe everything you read in a governmental report. Americans have to learn to think for ourselves. Most of our information is spoon fed to us in the nightly news or in a newspaper.

 

Michael

 

 

 

[jtryka]

Michael,

 

A very well thought and informative reply...yes, I am being sarcastic. So, I am guessing your argument is, the Patriot Act tramples your civil rights and is unconstitutional because I said so. If you don't believe me then you are an American that can't think for yourself.

 

If there are truly that many violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (of which this is the 212th anniversary of their ratification), then you could have quickly listed a half dozen violations in half the time it took you to post the link and say basically nothing else.

 

Thanks for the link, and now I guess I know why you are scared:

 

- 272 Complaint within the OIG's jurisdiction comvering such allegations as excessive force by BOP correctional officers, verbal abuse by BOP staff, rude treatment by INS inspectors, unwarranted cell searches by BOP officers, and most concerning, illegal searches of personal residences and property by FBI agents.

 

- Of the 272 allegations, 34 were considered credible Patriot Act complaints which ranged from alleged beatings of immigration detainees to BOP correctional officers verbally abusing inmates.

 

Of the 34, some seemed pretty serious, like the case of the Egyptian national, or the allegations of illegal search and evidence planting by the FBI. Most were complaints by prisoners alleging anything from verbal abuse to forcing them to eat pork.

 

Despite the seriousness of some of these allegations, which of them specifically were caused by the Patriot act??? It seems that guards have abused prisoners before the act, and many of these other allegations occurred in similar situations before 2001, so again, what leads you to believe that the Patriot act is causing such violations??? They were violations before the act and they are still violations after the act.

 

I am honestly trying to have an open debate on this, but you really aren't helping much. If you could even post one aspect of the Patriot act that scares you, then we could at least debate. But merely hiding in fear caused by the vitriolic rhetoric of left leaning politicians cannot be debated, that is just an unfortunate circumstance.

 

Finally, yes I do realize the Journal has an opinion and agenda, especially since I specifically mentioned it was an EDITORIAL (that's where they generally keep the opinions in the Journal, as opposed to the front page, where the New York Times keeps theirs). Apparently I may not be as big an insufficiently_thoughtful_person as you presume me to be.

[TonerGuy]

Again, I am at a loss for a response. I am assuming that you read the report since you cited it in your response and you even quoted that the report states that these are "Patriot Act" violations, but then you ask me for examples of such.

 

Obviously your retort to anything I might list as examples will be "well that happened before 1991, so therefore its not a Patriot Act violation," so what is the point. Argue with the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, he calls them "Patriot Act" violations.

 

But to play along here are a couple for you to peruse ----

 

Here' s a link to as to indefinite detention -- Habeas Corpus violation?

 

Here's a link to the effect on the banking industry -- Patriot Act and Bank Customers -- Privacy no more!

 

And for those of you that value your right to bear arms -- the implications are overwhelming

 

I don't think you are an "insufficiently_thoughtful_person" as you so called yourself. But do some research. The dissenting opinions are out there. You should also be scared that your Consitution rights are being slowly and quietly eroded and amended.

 

Ask yourself why? And once you can get past the thought of "national security" you will be starting down the road of the real truth.

 

I hate to sound like some conspiracy nut, but I use to work for an consultant in counter-terrorism (former head of the State Department's Anti-Terrorism Task Force, a precursor to "Homeland Security") when I was in college as a research assistant. What I learned about the world and the US Government in that time changed my thinking forever.

 

Michael

 

 

 

[shadroch]

A specfic abuse of the Patriot Act.

A Las Vegas strip club owner was arrested on several counts. He offered to name names of local politicans he had bribed. using only that information,the FBI sent the lists of names to banks,who under the Patriot Act were required to turn over all records of any accounts in the peoples names. No warrants,no cause,no nothing.All the government now has to do is ask,not even obtain a warrant.

This was told in much more detail in Newseek last month in an article called something like-Operation G-string.

[jtryka]

Again, I am at a loss for a response. I am assuming that you read the report since you cited it in your response and you even quoted that the report states that these are "Patriot Act" violations, but then you ask me for examples of such.

 

Obviously your retort to anything I might list as examples will be "well that happened before 1991, so therefore its not a Patriot Act violation," so what is the point. Argue with the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, he calls them "Patriot Act" violations.

 

But to play along here are a couple for you to peruse ----

 

Here' s a link to as to indefinite detention -- Habeas Corpus violation?

 

Here's a link to the effect on the banking industry -- Patriot Act and Bank Customers -- Privacy no more!

 

And for those of you that value your right to bear arms -- the implications are overwhelming

 

I don't think you are an "insufficiently_thoughtful_person" as you so called yourself. But do some research. The dissenting opinions are out there. You should also be scared that your Consitution rights are being slowly and quietly eroded and amended.

 

Ask yourself why? And once you can get past the thought of "national security" you will be starting down the road of the real truth.

 

I hate to sound like some conspiracy nut, but I use to work for an consultant in counter-terrorism (former head of the State Department's Anti-Terrorism Task Force, a precursor to "Homeland Security") when I was in college as a research assistant. What I learned about the world and the US Government in that time changed my thinking forever.

 

Michael

 

See, now we have something to discuss!

 

Let's take these one at a time. First, the habeas corpus violation. While at first glance it may seem unthinkable that something as blantant as a violation of habeas corpus could ever occur in this country. Unfortunately it has, many times in fact. Lincoln suspended it indefinitely during the Civil War, Roosevelt did it with the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II, and it's been done to varying degrees in World War I and the Cold War. The main difference is that all these previous examples related to American Citizens as well as aliens, whereas the Patriot Act and the examples cited in your linked article relate solely to non-citizens. The fact remains, that even with the extension of detention to 7 days, or even indefinitely, this is not necessarily a violation of the Constitution per se, and even the Supreme Court has ruled as such. As for deportation proceedings, what can I say? That's one of the major drawbacks of not being a citizen, you can be deported. In my view, your example does not represent an "erosion" or "amendment" of the Constitution. It may at most represent a curtailment of civil liberties which often happens in times of war or national emergency. I think of it this way, if you live in California, and the forest is on fire and its heading towards your house, if the authorities order you to evacuate, they just violated your civil rights. But this was the case of emergency, and that is perfectly allowable. Some people like yourself find no distinction between times of peace and emergency that justifies any alteration in civil liberty; you seem to apply a rigid universal standard with no flexibility for current circumstances. On the other hand, I have much more comfort with allowing such flexibility.

 

Now let's talk about privacy in the banking industry. To keep it short, there is no privacy, and there never has been privacy in banking in this nation. If you want a numbered account with no identification requirements, there are plenty of banks in the Caribbean and Switzerland that can accomodate you. Perhaps you might also be concerned about the government's ability to view those banking records, which may be a warranted concern, but not a violation of your civil rights as generally individuals do not have a 4th Amendment right over records regarding them which are held by a third party. Now I ask you, is it really a Constitutional crisis if my local bank teller has to see my driver's license before she gives me cash from my account? Is it a civil rights abuse for a bank to verify my identity before letting me open an account?

 

Your third link has me baffled as to it's relevence to this discussion. How does the author's paranoid fear of Secretary Rumsfeld's defense policies and tenuous argument that somehow this will erode 2nd Amendment rights have anything to do with the Patriot Act? I found the article entertaining, but wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

 

And as you can see above, my retort will not be "well that happened before 1991, so therefore its not a Patriot Act violation," so again, I would like to see what has you so afraid of this act. My guess is that much of the fear is irrational and unfounded, but that's only a guess. Certainly what you've shown me so far does not really support the level of hysteria currently surround this act on the left. If there are as many examples as you suggest, certainly you can come up with some real meat to your concerns.

 

Again, I will tell you, the Patriot Act does not frighten me. People like Howard Dean frighten me. People like Hillary Clinton frighten me. The judicial branch of government frightens me, as that one branch as done more to curtail the rights of citizens than the supporters of the Patriot Act could ever imagine. In this regard I will defer to Thos. Jefferson:

 

"Over the Judiciary department, the Constitution [has] deprived [the people] of their control. ... The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will. ... It is a misnomer to call a government in which a branch of the supreme power [the judiciary] is independent of the nation. ... The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

 

A specfic abuse of the Patriot Act.

A Las Vegas strip club owner was arrested on several counts. He offered to name names of local politicans he had bribed. using only that information,the FBI sent the lists of names to banks,who under the Patriot Act were required to turn over all records of any accounts in the peoples names. No warrants,no cause,no nothing.All the government now has to do is ask,not even obtain a warrant.

This was told in much more detail in Newseek last month in an article called something like-Operation G-string.

 

Again, the courts have long held there is no individual protection under the 4th Amendment for records about a person maintained by a third party, so what exactly is the violation here? Did they break into these politicians offices or homes and search without a warrant? You know, under IRS regulations, your employer is reguired to file reports informing the government how much income you earned from them, even if you are not even suspected of a crime! If you deposit $10,000.01 in cash in your checking account, the bank must file a report informing the government of this trransaction, without a warrant! Again, what is the violation here?

[jom]

Got job guys. I'm happy there hasn't been any name-calling here as is usually the case in the Cooler (why they call it the "Cooler" is beyond me...).

 

Anywho, just a quick question here. I suppose this is somewhat rhetorical but I want to ask anyway: If many of the things that are happening now that are being "blamed" on the Patroit Act were, in fact, done previously and gotten away with (assumption here by me...I don't really know) then what was the purpose of the Patriot Act in the first place? If the Gov't can already do all these things then why the new law? Another words, what's the point?

 

jom

[Wihlborg]

Jom,

 

Maybe so the politicians can look like they did something about a problem?

Although the above was meant as a ‘tongue in cheek’ statement, I do believe that in some cases there is a lot of truth in that statement.

 

John

 

[jtryka]

jom,

 

That is an excellent question, and I can try to address at least a portion of it from what I have read. I think a lot of the motivation compared with prior laws is an effort to consolidate laws and in a sense clarify previous laws. Let me illustrate with one example, that being the granting of wiretap and search warrants granted in secret hearings by a group of Federal judges (this is the secret courts that I'm sure you've heard about when it comes to the Patriot act). If you look at history, before 1978, government authorities could conduct searches and surveillance to stop threats to national security without any warrants or judicial intervention at all. In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) which first established a process for obtaining secret wiretap and search warrants in hearings before a select group of judges. Under FISA, warrants were issued upon showing that the "primary purpose" of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence. The DOJ and the special courts interpreted this language to mean that information gathered by such means could not be shared with law enforcement officials except under rare circumstances. The Patriot act changed the wording to "significant purpose" specifically to eliminate this barrier between counter-intelligence and law enforcement (a barrier that at least contributed to the security failures of 9/11/01). The Patriot Act also expanded FISA to include business and other records that are relevant to terrorist activities (this is where the financial contributions to terrorist organizations starts to fit in). It also makes the warrants issued under FISA neutral as to the technology addressed, so if a suspect switches from a land line to a cell phone to the internet for communications, the same warrant will cover all three, eliminating the need to get a new warrant everytime a terrorist switches cell phones. The Patriot Act also expands the geographic reach of FISA warrants, so that a suspect can be monitored nationwide, rather than only within a single geographic area. So in essence, the way I see it, the biggest purpose of the Patriot Act is the integration of many existing laws into a more coherant and effective system to fight terrorism. As for all the recent changes in company/bank policies being blamed on the Patriot Act, I think it's just that, blame. Like the safe deposit policy change that started this thread, the bank may blame it on the Patriot Act, but it's more likely the bank just wanted to change its policies and found this law as a convient justification.

[jom]

Good job! That explains much of what I was asking about. I do believe however that some of this Act will come under scrutiny and when all is said and done it won't be the big deal the Left claims it is. This will come about by the Judical System you seem to dislike, Jeff.

 

I still firmly believe it what Franklin said many years ago (paraphrased): "Anyone who sacrifices security for freedom deserves neither"

 

The Patriot act changed the wording to "significant purpose" specifically to eliminate this barrier between counter-intelligence and law enforcement (a barrier that at least contributed to the security failures of 9/11/01).

 

This may be true but I still believe that the CIA and the FBI screwed up MONUMENTALLY on 9/11. In fact, in response to Whilborg's comment, I agree to an extent. I've always believed "some" of the reason for the Patriot Act was to defer blame from both the CIA and FBI. The Gov't can now say "see, if we had these new laws 9/11 would not have happened".. Implying the Gov't had their hands tied. I don't believe that...never will. There is too much evidence to the contrary.

 

Great post, Jeff!

 

jom

[jtryka]

Jom,

 

My post is just one small part, and there are a lot of parts of the law that do trouble me, especially the habeas corpus issues. And I agree that there is a good bit of blame deflection on 9/11 going on, but in one way I agree with it, since FISA as it was passed could not be used for a lot of crimes committed in the US, hence the prohibition on sharing info with law enforcement. Though it's important to note that this prohibition was self-imposed by the narrow interpretation of the wording by the DOJ and FISA court.

 

I like that Franklin quote, but I also view it from a somewhat different perspective. In Ben's day, freedom was not viewed without looking at the responsibilities entailed in such freedoms. Today, the courts have expanded rights to include such things as abortion and sodomy, and groups like the ACLU have expanded the right to a fair trial and due process to be a method for criminals to avoid responsibility for their crimes based on technicalities. When looking at such "freedoms" that in the eyes of Franklin wouldn't have been freedoms or rights at all, giving them up may not really be sacrificing freedom at all. But that's a debate for another day.

[Wihlborg]

Great posts Jeff,

 

While I personally am not overly troubled by the passage of the Patriot act, it was interesting to read a little more in depth info on what it can and cannot actually be used for. Like you, I am far more worried about the far left and some of the judges that try to make law, instead of interpreting and following it.

 

John

 

[jtryka]

Don't give me too much credit John, as I would really like more discussion of the issues involved. There are legitimate concerns about the act on both sides, but we need to really be open in order to have a debate and actually learn from one another. My posts represent one very small piece of the law and the differing views on the law. I for one would love for others to post their concerns relating to specific areas of the law, so we can discuss them, and see if Al Gore's blanket condemnation is truly justified or merely politically motivated. What I hope to avoid are the types of "debates" that devolve into the sort of "I know you are but what am I" type fiascos, where little in the way of facts or reasoning are heard. I hope to go for more substantive arguments.

[jom]

...and see if Al Gore's blanket condemnation is truly justified or merely politically motivated...

 

Heh. What politician's motive isn't politically oriented? I'm sure if it had been a Democratic Admin that had supported a similar law there'd be Reps ready to shoot it down one way or another.

 

Partisan politics: the mind killer.

 

jom

[TonerGuy]

Like you, I am far more worried about the far left and some of the judges that try to make law, instead of interpreting and following it.

 

John -- have you read the Constitution? Judges are suppose to make law. That's why they are there. Politicians are notably inept at writing laws, they are motivated by -- well, of all things, politics. It is the judiciary's job to interpret those laws written by politicians and when necessary strike them down or interpret them and hence create case law.

 

This is what protects us from unconstitutional laws and insures our rights.

 

Michael

 

 

[RobertB]

Like you, I am far more worried about the far left and some of the judges that try to make law, instead of interpreting and following it.

 

John -- have you read the Constitution? Judges are suppose to make law. That's why they are there. Politicians are notably inept at writing laws, they are motivated by -- well, of all things, politics. It is the judiciary's job to interpret those laws written by politicians and when necessary strike them down or interpret them and hence create case law.

 

This is what protects us from unconstitutional laws and insures our rights.

 

Michael

 

 

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! I'm going to get in on this. Judges are NOT supposed to make law, not saying you, but this is a belief of which ever political party cannot get what it wants through legislation. In case anyone needs a highschool civics lesson here we go:

Judicial - INTERPRETS the law

Legislature- MAKES law

Executive- ENFORCES the law.........and this is what the constitution says.

[jom]

Judicial - INTERPRETS the law

Legislature- MAKES law

Executive- ENFORCES the law.........and this is what the constitution says.

 

No no no. You got it all wrong. It's:

 

Judicial: Tells Congress what to make into law

Legislature: Since they have nothing to do they sit around and figure out which Pork Barrell to eat from

Executive: Forces the law on the people

 

 

jom

[Wihlborg]

Michael,

 

Actually, yes I have read the constitution, although not recently and I have to say that I am shocked at your statement. As I remember it the constitution says that congress has the power to make all laws with the approval of the President of the United States.

 

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that judges have the power to pass laws. A judges job is to interpret and enforce through the courts the laws that congress and the president pass. I do agree with your statement that judges have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional, but I never said that they did not have this power. I do believe however that this power is supposed to be metered out strictly following the wording of the constitution, and not by someone’s political leaning.

 

John