patrick.net

corntrollio says

Don't really understand the hostility. I quoted what you said, and it's a fair reading of what you said.

No. I've been talking laws forcing ira's to buy tbills. I've put up the quote, you've put up the qoute, it doesn't say anything about confiscation. The issue of confiscation was a seperate example about a totally different issue. You rolled it all together. I'm STILL waiting for what mechanism would prevent congress from doing requiring IRA's to by tbills.

corntrollio says

He wanted to open brokerage accounts. Schwab and Fidelity gave him a lot of shit about this, and I forget who else. I know one of the hangups was that he didn't have a US address, and they gave him a lot of shit for this. He considered using mine until he decided to give up entirely because the whole process was getting out of hand with other hangups.

I suspect you gave your mother's address as your address, so that's how you made it work so easily.

What does a brokerage account have to do with the issue and why would you even bring it up? It's hard to open a brokerage account living in NYC. We were talking about standard issue checking accounts, personal or corporate. The point was banks in rest of the world do a lot of due diligence before opening a checking account, banks in the US do none.

I use a mail forwarding service as my permanent address. They open, scan, and email as well as trashing anything not official. At this point it's a couple emails a month. I also have a us phone number that forwards a call anywhere in the world. Set both up online years ago without ever talking to a biological. Why your "buddy" couldn't do this is hard to understand.

corntrollio says

then I read the actual Executive Order.

So did I. The question still stands, what were the specific actions that constitute "material support" outlined against each person named. Nothing, nada, zip. Just boilerplate because I'm the president and I said so. You would think that that at least what they did would be outlined. Never mind any sort of due process of law.

You need to reread Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The supreme court said it was ok to prosecute under the material support statute. It was a narrow ruling limited to first amendment grounds that the court specifically said "future applications of the material-support statute to speech or advocacy" may not survive First Amendment scrutiny in the ruling. A supreme court ruling that a prosecution may go forward is a long, long way from a carte blanche to issue executive orders.

corntrollio says

Trying to equate this EO with in res cases by abusive local police doesn't really work.

Why is the federal government seizing your assets with no due process of law any different from police seizing your assets with no due process of law?

Strategist says

If they confiscated a landlord's home for someone doing drugs, no landlord would want to be in the business. The motel example above had a history drug abuse and the owner was accused of not doing anything about it. The rest of the examples were for cars.

I would not get too worried.

How about someone's building being seized for renting to a perfectly legal business?

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/federal-506499-jalali-property.html

Strategist says

I'm not too worried about my cars.

These aren't people's cars. These are people going to buy a car and having the money seized at a traffic stop. The very act of legally carrying cash is an indication that an illegal act was performed to get the cash. Even if you have documentation saying otherwise. Catch 22.