SixTwoLeemer wrote:

mepps1 wrote:If what we read is true, it would appear that Mr. Stancil made a series of stupid mistakes. However, I think that nobody should too high on their horse (or anything else), or be in any particular rush to throw the first stone. The fact is that if you are reading this, your are almost certainly a felon. You've probably not been convicted just yet, but the fact remains that you are a free person with a clean record primarily because you have never attracted the undivided attention of any state or federal enforcer. Hyperbole? I think not.

The federal tax code alone is fills some 71,684 (and counting) pages. If you have ever filed an income tax return, you are almost certainly a felon. Please report to jail.

If you have ever hunted or fished across state lines, you are almost certainly a felon. The Lacey Act has, since 1900, made it a federal felony to transport across state lines any part of any plant or animal which has been taken, handled, or shipped in violation of the laws of any state or foreign government. If you've ever possibly transported a foul hooked fish, or one a quarter inch under-length, a duck shot thirty seconds after legal light, any species of wood or plant which could be construed to be illegal in any sense ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 59286.html ), bought or sold any fish or game which was taken in any illegal manner, under the arcane laws of any single nation on earth, you are a felon. Please report to prison.

If you are self employed, or own any small or large business, I promise you're a felon. Tax laws. Labor laws. DOT. EPA. OSHA. EEOC. Federal, state, city, county............. Please save us all some hassle, and just plead guilty.

Tell Mr. Stancil "Hello" when you are housed in the same facility.

Until then, please don't be too quick to judge all the other felons, since you are one, after all.

http://cablenewsguy.com/John%20Stossel% ... !flashvars#autostart=false&thumb=FirstFrame.png&thumbscale=45&color=0x000000,0x000000

http://threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

mepps1 wrote:#-o I guess you don't read the news enough to know that a substantial number of the "embassy staff, federal agents, or others murdered due to illegal commerce" were gunned down using weapons our ATF and DEA deliberately exported to Mexico. Who's going to jail for that? Oh, wait, nobody is, since federal agents were responsible for the sales, as opposed to a private businessman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

LOL!! That's funny right there!

Ah man..... Hope we all start the week on a good note. Been a drama filled weekend it seemed like.

M6RV6 wrote:..............
I just wonder where in the Constitution it gives the US Government the RIGHT to tell anyone that they have to tell the GOVERNMENT when they spend or receive a cash payment over $10,000.
....................

While it's true that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it doesn't cover all the details. I don't think that it sez I can't throw a rock through your window, steal your car, or assume your identity, but I'm pretty sure that 1) those things are illegal, and 2) most of us agree that they should be. I don't have a problem with the cash reporting rules, esp since I believe they apply to businesses not private transactions. I'm sure that all of us have (unwittingly or otherwise) bent the rules at one time or another, but probably not to the degree being discussed (close to half a million bucks worth). Just like busting a TFR-- cutting across the very edge is one thing, blowing right through the middle of one is another. Both violations, just a matter of degree.

I guess I'm still stuck. Let me address a couple of questions to those of you who support the government's position that they may track all cash payments over a certain amount and apply legal sanctions to those who don't comply. (And by the way, these rules apply to private as well as commercial transactions).

Simple questions for simple folks like me. (1) Does this activity by the government hinder the trafficking of illegal drugs? If this activity by the government falls under the powers granted to the government by the commerce clause, which I am fairly certain it does, (2) can it be viewed as a success on any level? A much broader question might be; (3) has the federal government ever successfully regulated any private activity; drinking, whoring, or drug consumption as examples? No really. I'm interested in finding out (4) how effective the US government has been in limiting the profits of drug cartels by confiscating the property of US citizens? The market in illegal drugs seems to me to be pretty well unlimited. Enough so that the entire government of Mexico has been brought near to collapse as a result of the vast amount of discretionary cash from America's poor and huddled masses racing across the border and funding a corrupt and violent insurgency.

It is very clear to me that governments have the right and the need to legislate moral matters. Otherwise legislatures would be left with nothing much to do beyond deciding what the state bird will be for instance, or establishing the hours of legal twilight. Murder and rape are moral matters. But with that in mind I think we as a nation get confused sometimes on what effective law looks like and what repression looks like. I believe we will never stop drug use unless we resort to the extermination of all drug buyers. I hope there is no plan like that in the works. There are many societies around the world that have simply taken the money out of drug distribution. They have not collapsed. (5) Who benefits from the current status quo with regard to these markets? If we as a nation truly want to stop the killing of border agents and the mass murder of thousands across the border (5.5) aren't there simpler and more effective ways than the confiscation of personal property? If Stancil broke the law then that is of course reprehensible, (6) but doesn't the complete failure of the War on Drugs have at least a little to do with it? Like maybe, creating the environment whereby the crime is inevitable? That may be a stretch. I wonder if the control of transactions in the legal tender of the US is more about revenue enhancement than drug policy. But of course I'm cynical.

Help me out here. Even if we grant that the government has the power and right to punish a merchant for accepting profits from an illegal enterprise, (7) how culpable is the government in the first place for creating the circumstances in which those profits are so large? (8) Finally, how does this whole business benefit our culture, our values or our nation?

This is an example of running head on into the $10,000 limit and how ineffective the enforcement really is. Read this, it is my story of where I was on 9/11 submitted by the request of the Aberdeen American News. My comment will make sense after you read the article.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/911-an ... 0933.story

Notice that in the story, I could easily have been moving money out of the country using the same technique that I stumbled upon here. I could have just as easily purchased any amount of negotiable securities with cash in excess of $10,000 and without having endorsed any of them, crossed the border only to endorse them on the other side. I was not guilty of carrying negotiable securities or cash out because they were not endorsed before I crossed and therefore; no good to anyone but me. So, I could just cross with them unsigned and then signed them on the other side. No violation of the law the way it went down but still accomplishing the same thing a money launderer sets out to do. Not that I would have rather lost my 701 to this style transaction, but tell me how this is different than carrying out cash. If I hadn't brought back a plane, I would never have been stopped and questioned about the transaction by US customs when coming back in.

There is another story of a man years ago who dealt with the Japanese. He took payment from them in American Travelers checks for what he sold. He flew to Japan, received travelers checks as payment and returned home and spent them as needed like anyone would using cash, signing them only as they were needed, so they were also not negotiable until endorsed while he crossed borders. To the best of my knowledge he is still a free man and one would wonder if he ever declared any of it as income to the infernal revenuers.

Emory Bored
X2 Thanks

[quoteby hotrod150 » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:57 am

M6RV6 wrote:
..............
I just wonder where in the Constitution it gives the US Government the RIGHT to tell anyone that they have to tell the GOVERNMENT when they spend or receive a cash payment over $10,000.
....................


While it's true that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it doesn't cover all the details.][/quote]

Where in the constitution does it state that the Government have control over what I buy and How??
Amendments
4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause
5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy
8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment
10th Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution
16th amendment was a screwup!!

16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)

Far-reaching in its social as well as its economic impact, the income tax amendment became part of the Constitution by a curious series of events culminating in a bit of political maneuvering that went awry.

The financial requirements of the Civil War prompted the first American income tax in 1861. At first, Congress placed a flat 3-percent tax on all incomes over $800 and later modified this principle to include a graduated tax. Congress repealed the income tax in 1872, but the concept did not disappear.

After the Civil War, the growing industrial and financial markets of the eastern United States generally prospered. But the farmers of the south and west suffered from low prices for their farm products, while they were forced to pay high prices for manufactured goods. Throughout the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s, farmers formed such political organizations as the Grange, the Greenback Party, the National Farmers’ Alliance, and the People’s (Populist) Party. All of these groups advocated many reforms (see the Interstate Commerce Act) considered radical for the times, including a graduated income tax.

In 1894, as part of a high tariff bill, Congress enacted a 2-percent tax on income over $4,000. The tax was almost immediately struck down by a five-to-four decision of the Supreme Court, even though the Court had upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War tax as recently as 1881. Although farm organizations denounced the Court’s decision as a prime example of the alliance of government and business against the farmer, a general return of prosperity around the turn of the century softened the demand for reform. Democratic Party Platforms under the leadership of three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, however, consistently included an income tax plank, and the progressive wing of the Republican Party also espoused the concept.

In 1909 progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never received ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect. Yet in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1 percent of net income.

This document settled the constitutional question of how to tax income and, by so doing, effected dramatic changes in the American way of life.

GT

I guess you don't read the news enough to know that a substantial number of the "embassy staff, federal agents, or others murdered due to illegal commerce" were gunned down using weapons our ATF and DEA deliberately exported to Mexico.

I actually can and do read the news in fact make it a point to read several different versions of the same story.

Yep the ATF has on several occasions screwed the pooch on trying to follow the guns across the border, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the vast majority of US weapons in cartel hands came from purchases at gun shows not the ATF. Sort like blaming the high tide in the ocean from some guy pissing into it.

TD

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

mepps1 wrote:If what we read is true, it would appear that Mr. Stancil made a series of stupid mistakes. However, I think that nobody should too high on their horse (or anything else), or be in any particular rush to throw the first stone. The fact is that if you are reading this, your are almost certainly a felon. You've probably not been convicted just yet, but the fact remains that you are a free person with a clean record primarily because you have never attracted the undivided attention of any state or federal enforcer. Hyperbole? I think not.

The federal tax code alone is fills some 71,684 (and counting) pages. If you have ever filed an income tax return, you are almost certainly a felon. Please report to jail.

If you have ever hunted or fished across state lines, you are almost certainly a felon. The Lacey Act has, since 1900, made it a federal felony to transport across state lines any part of any plant or animal which has been taken, handled, or shipped in violation of the laws of any state or foreign government. If you've ever possibly transported a foul hooked fish, or one a quarter inch under-length, a duck shot thirty seconds after legal light, any species of wood or plant which could be construed to be illegal in any sense ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 59286.html ), bought or sold any fish or game which was taken in any illegal manner, under the arcane laws of any single nation on earth, you are a felon. Please report to prison.

If you are self employed, or own any small or large business, I promise you're a felon. Tax laws. Labor laws. DOT. EPA. OSHA. EEOC. Federal, state, city, county............. Please save us all some hassle, and just plead guilty.

Tell Mr. Stancil "Hello" when you are housed in the same facility.

Until then, please don't be too quick to judge all the other felons, since you are one, after all.

http://cablenewsguy.com/John%20Stossel% ... !flashvars#autostart=false&thumb=FirstFrame.png&thumbscale=45&color=0x000000,0x000000

http://threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

mepps1 wrote:#-o I guess you don't read the news enough to know that a substantial number of the "embassy staff, federal agents, or others murdered due to illegal commerce" were gunned down using weapons our ATF and DEA deliberately exported to Mexico. Who's going to jail for that? Oh, wait, nobody is, since federal agents were responsible for the sales, as opposed to a private businessman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

But if you'd just look a little further, you'd see what I'm talking about.

My personal contribution to keeping this thread out of hot air will be to stop posting on it. You can thank me later.

Again, there doesn't appear to be much doubt that Mr. Stancil made some substantial mistakes. No debate there. I just think we'd do well to understand that whatever he did do has been presented in the most negative possible light, with lots of insinuation on top of it. There is no reason that what he did should be a felony in any free society. But we haven't really lived in one of those for a while, I think.



http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/t ... singlepage

John DeLorean ring a bell?

Wikipedia
DeLorean successfully defended himself with a procedural defense, despite video evidence of him referring to a suitcase full of cocaine as "good as gold" -- arguing that the FBI had enticed a convicted narcotics smuggler to get him to supply the money to buy the cocaine. His attorney stated in Time (March 19, 1984), "This [was] a fictitious crime. Without the government, there would be no crime." The DeLorean defense team did not call any witnesses. DeLorean was found not guilty because of entrapment on August 16, 1984.

The parallel is drug dealers. If drugs were legal?????????????????????Wouldn't need the cops for that job, put the money into rehab franchises. Or the druggies OD. No loss there.

Good day

Emory Bored wrote:Help me out here. Even if we grant that the government has the power and right to punish a merchant for accepting profits from an illegal enterprise, (7) how culpable is the government in the first place for creating the circumstances in which those profits are so large? (8) Finally, how does this whole business benefit our culture, our values or our nation?

The laws have managed to track down quite a bit of illegal business. Obviously, it's not even a fly on the windshield to the drug trade and other illegal business segments it targets. In addition, it is an institution that is absolutely o.k. with targeting innocent people as collateral damage- and they do. So the real question is why do we have them. The reason they will tell you is drugs and terrorism. The drugs thing is ridiculous. You can't track an economy that comprises 70% of Mexico's gross domestic product alone in $10k increments. The terrorism thing has been exhaustively debunked- the financial networks of terrorism simply don't intersect with legitimate retail banking on a scale that other law enforcement efforts find useful (in Europe, for example).

I got a shakedown in college when I moved my money from one bank to another a couple of decades ago- I had all my entire cash worth of savings from the summer's work, including the proceeds of a vehicle sale, and it added up to something like $9000 and change. I did the transfer with an envelope of cash I got at the bank, and walked over to the other bank, and deposited it. My account was frozen for two weeks, and I had to pay nearly $600 in late registration fees. That was about 7% of my net worth. The transaction didn't even meet the $10k law, but some Special Agent decided she was on to something. I referred to her a "Special Needs Agent" in my interview with her. She was fully armed, and so was her assistant. My respect for this sort of thing has not improved over the years. All this because a kid worked hard to sign up for calculus and thermodynamics.

Placerville Airplane Dealer Ordered To Disgorge Illegal Profits And Pay Maximum Fine For Accepting Apparent Drug Proceeds
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Lauren Horwood


March 8, 2012


Docket #: 2:12-CR-00025 MCE


SACRAMENTO, Calif. — United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced that Stancil Enterprises, Inc., a corporation selling airplanes from a location in Placerville, California, was sentenced today to forfeit approximately $428,000 and to pay $500,000 in criminal fines for conspiring to aid and abet the structuring of financial transactions.

On February 16, 2012, Stancil Enterprises, Inc. pleaded guilty to a one count information charging Stancil Enterprises, its owner and president, Joseph Stancil, and a salesman at the company, Daniel Mathis. Joseph Stancil spoke on behalf of Stancil Enterprises at the sentencing.

According to the plea agreement, in 2008 and 2009, Stancil Enterprises sold multiple planes in exchange for cash structured into Stancil Enterprises bank accounts. Stancil Enterprises and its agents believed the purchasers to be Mexican and the deposited cash to be from illegal narcotics trafficking. The company and its agents knew that the buyers were structuring cash into its account in increments of less than $10,000 in order to avoid reporting requirements. The company and its agents also knew that the bank could not have any knowledge of the relationship of the transactions to a specific buyer or plane, and could not then determine whether or not to report the transaction and, if it did, could not identify the individuals making the deposits or purchasing the planes. Knowing this, Stancil Enterprises made the sales by assisting the structuring, permitting the use of its accounts and refraining from filing its own required reports on cash over $10,000 received in relation to each sale.

In November 2009, an undercover agent with the Internal Revenue Service made contact with Joseph Stancil and advised Stancil that he wished to purchase a plane for his son with cash and asked for advice on how to accomplish that without having any reports filed on the cash transaction. Stancil’s response indicated that he understood that the fictional son was engaged in drug trafficking activity in Mexico, specifically marijuana. Stancil proceeded to advise the agent how “the Mexicans” did it, depositing cash in increments into Stancil Enterprises accounts. Stancil and the undercover agent proceeded into the office of Daniel Matjos, who advised the agent about Stancil Enterprises’s Form 8300 reporting requirement for such cash transactions. When Stancil asked how they got away with not reporting “the Mexicans,” Mathis advised that no one had ever “hassled” Stancil Enterprises about the issue.

From September 2008 and through August 2009, Stancil Enterprises received $428,589.30 in structured funds in relation to six plane sales, each with a separate buyer. The Court ordered the company to forfeit those funds as part of its sentence.

In sentencing Stancil Enterprises, Inc., to the maximum available punishment, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. noted that Stancil had an “extremely complex, large scale operation” that resulted in significant financial gains to the company through deposits from apparent drug dealers.

This case is the product of an extensive investigation by the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation and a Financial Crimes Task Force including the Sacramento Police Department and Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, and Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler, who is prosecuting the case.

United States Attorney Benjamin Wagner said that “Stancil Enterprises looked the other way to make a buck, letting criminal elements avoid reporting requirements designed to identify criminals like drug traffickers. Doing business with drug dealers, from Mexico or anywhere else, enables these criminals to continue all kinds of violent criminal activity. We will not ignore what some like to call ‘technical’ financial reporting crimes – to do so would give drug traffickers and other criminals free rein in our financial systems. We urge all businesses to review their own cash accounting practices and ensure that any suspicious transactions are reported according to the law.”

“The defendants knew that the buyers of the planes structured the cash deposits in order to avoid the reporting requirements,” said Marcus Williams, IRS-CI Special Agent in Charge. “Those who turn a blind eye to this kind of activity run the risk of having their assets seized. We hit them where it hurts - in their wallets.”

The charges in the information as to Joseph Stancil and Daniel Mathis are only allegations and they are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

####

mepps1 wrote: Again, there doesn't appear to be much doubt that Mr. Stancil made some substantial mistakes. No debate there. I just think we'd do well to understand that whatever he did do has been presented in the most negative possible light, with lots of insinuation on top of it. There is no reason that what he did should be a felony in any free society. But we haven't really lived in one of those for a while, I think.

A mistake is when your wife calls and says to pick up 1% milk and get 2% by "MISTAKE". Chedder instead of American. What happened was that he knew he was breaking the law and thought he was so clever that he could get away with it. Probably got his advise from the "MEXICANS"

Sombody explain to me how this could have been presented in a positive light.

It cost him almost a million bucks plus the cost of lawers that most likely told him that he better take that deal cus otherwise he would be spending time behind bars. If he was blameless then a million bucks can hire darned good lawers.

Tim

Tim, I don't think he is 'blameless'.......
I just know that a fair number of us could be a 'Frog' in a pan of water that is heated slowly........
And then after a while realize we are in real 'hot water'.
Maybe this deal that the 'Ringers' were offering him, he considered a lifeline to get out of the mess.
I have seen a good man go 'down' trying to 'double down' on commodities trying to save his friends/family/customers money, but the market had changed, and instead he lost it ALL for them (and went to jail). He had had the 'magic touch' for many, many, years and couldn't come to grips with the sudden change in the market.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
We don't know enough to pass judgment, and I don't trust the Feds (too/to many it is all about 'notches' and career advancement) to keep perspective. (Too many examples to list)


I'll leave it between him and his God to deal with and just say that it is very sad for him AND his family.
lc

Be very carfull what you do, I had a red flag on my FAA name all because I walked up on a plane that was beeing seazed by the DEA , the red flag was there for tow years, had to watch for locaters ect every time We went flying

Littlecub wrote:Tim, I don't think he is 'blameless'.......
I just know that a fair number of us could be a 'Frog' in a pan of water that is heated slowly........
And then after a while realize we are in real 'hot water'.

I think I first heard the frog in boiling water analagy when I was in the sixth grade. Well I just had to give it a try. All I could find was a toad and he wanted no part of the experiment.

So what you are saying is that he got a little dirty then eventually he looked like a happy pig.



tim