Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So has anything disappeared from you Safety Deposit Box?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
redirish28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 08:58 AM
Original message
So has anything disappeared from you Safety Deposit Box?
Normally I don't even listen to a Friend of mine and my wife when she talks about "The Voice of the White House" she mentioned in a e-mail this section from his most recent post:


*The DHS can, and does, go into banks, (in California they go to the Bank of America who is always cooperative) and open customers safe deposit boxes and poke around. Oddly enough, gold coins, cash and drugs have vanished from these boxes. Where ever does it go? To the Salvation Army? Would honorable, highly intelligent and very moral federal agents actually steal? Is there a cow in Texas? Is the Pope Catholic? *


So has anyone gone to the bank recently with a safety deposit box and found something missing from it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. With the DHS around, what makes "Safety Deposit Boxes" safe?
What makes anything safe? Just What is the "Dept of Homeland Security" securing? Certainly not the Homeland. And not the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondie58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. this is outrageous
Of course, there are bad characters in any line of work, so it is to be expected that our DHS would have a few with "questionable morals".

Gosh, you would be better off to keep your valuable under your mattress. I guess it is a good thing that I never had enough valuables to worry about having a safety deposit box.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncle ray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. soooo
you would be okay with them poking around in your safe deposit box without your knowledge as long as they didn't actually take anything valuable?

i wouldn't. because it's not about money to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
3. I don't think so . . .
. . . sounds like Urban Legend material to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. "Drugs?" Illegal drugs? People keep their stashes in safety deposit boxes?
that don't sound right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. if a stash was for re-sale rather than personal use
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 10:04 AM by pitohui
some of the boxes are huge and could easily hold an entire suitcase of cash or drugs

i probably wasn't supposed to but i saw some fine wines being held in the vault at my bank, no doubt temporarily until the person had an adequate "cellar" (we can't have underground storage for obvious reasons in south louisiana) in their home

many years ago my dad attended a notorious function in another state where some of the party-goers got loaded and went into the vault and rolled around on the cash -- this wasn't the customer's boxes, this was the officer's and the bank's ill-gotten cash -- ah the 80s -- that particular banker ended in prison many years ago tho

you'd be amazed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. I really am amazed
But people being people, I guess I shouldn't be.

wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. i am missing something but they leave a receipt so i don't suspect fedgov
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 10:00 AM by pitohui
i don't believe my item was taken, i believe i misplaced it

a friend of mine, his cash was removed and they have left a receipt, i don't know if he will be able to get it back because i don't know the details, but the money doesn't just "poof," a documentation describing what has been taken must be placed in the box -- this is not a close friend and while the money was legally earned from gambling proceeds, i do not know if this particular friend paid taxes on his gain, so this may be the cause of the dispute

the bank has no control over this nor is any cash, jewels etc. left in your box covered by insurance

my item is a piece of jewelry worth about $600, another reason i doubt it was worth the stealing by our fine boys at DOJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Possumpoint Donating Member (937 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. When
we were taken off the gold standard, FDR authorized the removal of all gold from vaults and safe deposit boxes. I don't know what receipts or reimbursement was used at that time.

It was suggested to me that if you purchase gold coins as a hedge against the falling dollar, bury it in you back yard where they can't find it. This is proof of what my father taught me. Don't trust the government, no matter what party is in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. FDR ordered safe deposit boxes sealed- nobody secretly raided them
Citizens' property was protected, and in clear sunshine, unlike today.

In April, 1933, Roosevelt issued an executive order:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(B) of The Act of Oct. 6, 1917, as amended by section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, in which Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, I as President, do declare that the national emergency still exists; That the continued private hoarding of gold and silver by subjects of the United States poses a grave threat to the peace, equal justice, and well-being of the United States; and that appropriate measures must be taken immediately to protect the interests of our people.

''Therefore, pursuant to the above authority, I herby proclaim that such gold and silver holdings are prohibited, and that all such coin, bullion or other possessions of gold and silver be tendered within fourteen days to agents of the Government of the United States for compensation at the official price, in the legal tender of the Government. All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed, pending action in the due course of the law. All sales or purchases or movements of such gold and silver within the borders of the United States and its territories, and all foreign exchange transactions or movements of such metals across the border are herby prohibited.

''Your possession of these proscribed metals and/or your maintenance of a safe-deposit box to store them is known to the Government from bank and insurance records. Therefore, be advised that your vault box must remain sealed, and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of The Internal Revenue Service.

''By lawful Order given this day, the President of the United States.''
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
8. Woah, they definitely need a warrant for that.
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 10:33 AM by Marie26
If this is true, it would even be worse than the wiretap scandal.

This is probably just an internet rumor, though. This "Voice of the White House" is not a reputable source - it's apparantly a front for a website of kooks & Holocaust deniers. No kidding.

WARNING: Beware the "Voice from the White House" -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/4/15748/99064

"I have seen reference occasionally to "news" reports that apparently come from a White House insider. These reports are titled "The Voice of the White House" and are being put out there by TBRNews. The latest installement is all about Gannon (as are many previous postings). According to TBR News, this "source" is "a reporter with access to the White House and Presidential press briefings." I began reading some of these reports from when they began back in March of 2004 and, while they are entertaining and sometimes convincing, something smelled bad. So I started to dig....

I think I should first start with TBR News itself. From their website, in the About Us section, the editor calls himself Walter Storch and says that TBR News originally came from the Barnes Review magazine. I have since come to discover, through two sources (one from the CIA and the other from a historical revisionist named Germar Rudolf, that Walter Storch is one of many pseudonyms used by Peter Stahl, a.k.a. Gregory Douglas. So, who is Gregory Douglas?

Well, let's just say I've waded through so many filthy revisionist websites today that I feel almost sick. In essence, it's all about anti-semitism and the holocost was a hoax shit. Regardless, I plugged my nose, took some gravol, and plowed my way through to find some very interesting information..

It was this quote that made me realize that the Voice from the White House that TBR claims to get the information from is actually Stahl/Douglas/Storch himself. ... This, along with other things, leads me to believe that Stahl/Douglas/Storch is actually writing these things himself. There is no "source" in the White House sending e-mails to TBR News. This whacko is making it up as he goes along. Why? God only knows....

I would caution anyone who is seriously interested in the Gannon investigation to COMPLETELY AVOID citing anything from TBR or the so-called "Voice From the White House".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. the warrant is served on the bank
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 10:30 AM by pitohui
then the bank witnesses as DOJ opens the box, does the search, and leaves a receipt for any item removed

my friend in the above anecdote was not informed of the warrant/search until sometime later when he visited the bank again to take money from his box

my strong suggestion is to place cash in the bank, checking, savings, CDs, don't really matter, but any of these are covered by the bank's fdic insurance against theft -- and the fact that you've declared the cash makes it less likely you'll be hassled in the first place -- there is a stupid form you have to fill out if you are unknown to the bank and depositing $10K or more but it really isn't any big, basically it is a form including proof of who you are and an explanation of where you got the money

for instance, i made a deposit at a friend's bank of cash i borrowed and never used, so i placed it back in his account, i showed driver's license, proof of where i lived in the neighborhood, explanation of where the money came from, and it was cool

too many people are afraid to deposit cash, their fear actually makes them more vulnerable to loss or seizure of all funds

to the person hiding cash under the mattress -- what happened to your cash during katrina? what happened during san diego county fires? to the person advocating coins buried in the back yard -- i personally know people who have lost tens of thousands of that way, buried coins get dug up by somebody else, every kid with $15 has a metal detector, you know, even allan turing lost a fortune in silver by burying it during the war and he probably had a higher powered brain than of us here on this thread

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
9. Former banker here, I closed out my last SDB several years ago
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 10:27 AM by slackmaster
I keep my goodies in a bigass safe at home.



But I closed the SDBs because of the outrageous cost, not because of fear of snooping. I was a bank procedures analyst for several years here in California:

There is NO FUCKING WAY a bank would allow anyone to look in a customer's safe deposit box without a search warrant. No way. And the procedure for executing such a warrant includes notifying the customer in writing, which gives them a chance to go to court and have the warrant quashed by a judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. not necessarily
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 10:35 AM by pitohui
apparently they DON'T inform the customer if there is reason to believe he will remove the cash, in the anecdote i shared above, my friend was not informed, probably correctly as he would indeed have removed the cash from the box


this wouldn't be the bank's option, i'm sure no bank wants to fuck w. people's deposit boxes, it seems to be at the discretion of dept. of justice and the judge signing the warrant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. In the real world, that IS the way it would work.....but
who says we are dealing with reality any longer? With all the signing statements, and all the sideline laws that have been passed w/o our knowledge, who says they can't do exactly what they please??? I know I wouldn't trust what used to be true, to be true now...especially when the bank that I have had my accounts in for the last 30+ years, now INSIST I provide them with picture identification EVERY damn time I try to do any sort of transaction with them...and it IS the PATRIOT ACT...that backs up this bullshit...because there is a lucite plaque right on the counter of MY BANK that says that from now on, this bank will INSIST you show identification in order to complete your transactions...oh, and I live in a town that is small enough for everyone to know everyone else by first name...you know...about 2400 all told...so there is NO excuse for requiring the identifying procedure from any of us, AT ALL...other than....you got it... BIG BROTHER wants to know how many sheets of tp you use to wipe with nowadays...so YES, I can and DO believe they ARE accessing people's SDBoxes...and w/o people's knowledge...
windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. money laundering act of 1986
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 11:07 AM by pitohui
your bank should have been checking IDs for 20 years pre-patriot, apparently these small town banks were in violation of federal law for decades

i'm always amazed to hear people tell how patriot act affected their banking, these laws impacted me well before patriot, they were enacted in the reagan era

i suppose there was only enforcement by the bigger banks or the banks in more large town or casino locations, all i can figure

all my banks also post the patriot act sign you mention, i have no idea as to why, since they have been enforcing these regulations a good long time before

perhaps they think the sign makes them look patriotic, more likely the patriot act imposed a requirement to post this sign, as opposed to previous regs -- you rarely (although you sometimes did) see signs about the bank "secrecy" act of the 70s (it was the opposite of protecting bank secrecy, just as patriot act is the opposite of protecting citizen's patriotism or cash)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Well, I am sure
when we opened accounts or took out loans, etc., our identity was authenticated...and IF our identity was authenticated when we opened our account in that bank, then we proved who we were, at that time....Does who we are, change somehow, as time goes on?

OK, say they were ordered to do this years ago...seems kinda strange they didn't comply until now...Personally, I believe my having to prove who I am, has gotten out of hand...instead of worrying about who I may have turned into other than who I was 30 years ago...they might want to watch their own backs a little more...less focus on individuals they know, and more focus on other things...like on line banking info they allow to be stolen...(

(oh and if these regulations started in the Reagan era...then it seems that someone was laying the groundwork many years ago for what is taking place now)

not arguing with what you are saying...just expressing my opinion about bb..and how perception that whatever they do is for our good...is bullshit...
wb

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. yes, that's correct
i may be thinking of another poster who insisted, positively insisted, that she was allowed to open a bank account without any proof of who she was in the late 1980s

if she was, it wasn't legal

the bank had closed her account under patriot and i frankly didn't see where she had a leg to stand on, since she refused to prove that she was who she said she was


reagan/bush, yeah, they've been laying the groundwork a long time, really goes back to the bank secrecy act of nixonian times in my humble opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC