Harrassed & Detained For Carrying Cash @ Airport

[coadie]

2. TSA said something like - "You are going to have to prove why you had that much money anyway to the DEA." What is that about? It seems like the TSA knows some rule that Steve will have to follow. Can someone elaborate on that statement?

that is a bluff. It is functional in DEA cases. These fellows are trying some customs tactics. International travel requires a currency declaration.

If one does have drugs and has money it is implied they are dealing.
I know a man with alcohol problems. He travels in business 20 nights a month. He not only carries money, he had some credit card problems and tries to pay cash when checking in. That disallows room restaurant and bar charges. He runs 3,000 dollars a month outside of rental cars and airline tickets. Gotta use plastic for car rental.

It also in recent years cut down on false charges added to his credit card after checking out.
No it is a demand and not a valid order to say one has to prove the source of money. Now the IRS can audit someone and they can trace money and require tracing the source of money and wonder if some comes from un reported income.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Digging,
There are a few points that still bother me.

1. Steve Bierfeldt is one of the people responsible for running the Campaign for Liberty. If he is so involved in this, why doesn't he know what is law and not law in regard to airport security? He obviously does some flying. I just think it's a huge oversight, on his part, to say things like - "Am I required by law to answer this question? If they can tell me if I am required by law to answer the question, I will answer the question."

Why doesn't he know if his mission in life is Liberty? He should have covered all of his bases. Airport security is a huge issue and has been for a long time - well, since 911 - so, why isn't he versed on the information he needed in advance?

2. TSA said something like - "You are going to have to prove why you had that much money anyway to the DEA." What is that about? It seems like the TSA knows some rule that Steve will have to follow. Can someone elaborate on that statement?

The TSA guy says, "You are suspicious to me." In truth, IMO, Steve was acting suspicious.

3. In regard to the MIAC report, there was an apology issued by the Missouri Dept of Public Safety saying that they regretted those comments (referencing Ron Paul, et al) were ultimately included in the final report issued by the MIAC. More pointedly the apology says,


Steve does mention the "militia members" part of the MIAC report, but, IMO, he is acting very much like he is part of a militia group. I was very turned off by Steve.

Another reason he turned me off was when Napolitano asked him about the money he said, "I'll tell you why I had the money and what I was doing, but don't tell law enforcement." That was really a smart aleck maneuver and only makes him look militia.

The FBI coming in and letting him go speaks of a clear background check during the interrogation coupled with the need to not have more attention drawn to the MIAC report.

4. Going back to Steve not knowing the law, which I find rather strange, it can only appear that he is looking for a fight or attention as someone stated.

"What do you do for a living?"

"Is that relevant, sir?"

He appears to have, IMO, unnecessarily put the TSA guys on defense mode and might be because of the DEA statement I referenced in point 2. Again, could someone elaborate on the DEA remark?

5. Andrew Napolitano makes a ridiculous "profiling" statement of his own when he has Fox put Steve's picture up for the viewers. "Does this look like a terrorist?"

What does a terrorist look like, Napolitano?

6. Napolitano, at the beginning of the clip, says another ridiculous thing - Steve has a "super duper, new cell phone" that you touch to turn it on like you are rubbing your chest" What is that? He doesn't know what kind of cell phone Steve has? Why not? That is also suspicious to me. It's almost like Steve forced this encounter because of the MIAC report and was wanting more coverage to prove the apology wasn't for real. Speculation on my part.

7. Napolitano, again, "Why they would threaten to bring in the Drug Enforcement Admin - Don't know what they would have to do with it?"

Really? Large amounts of money usually mean weapon or drug purchase - usually drugs. Why would that shock him? $4,700 may not seem like a lot, but the average traveler is not going to have that much cash on him.

Anyway, Digging, that's my take. Again, point 2, seems to need some attention. The main TSA guy seemed to know what he was talking about. The others in the background appeared to be wanting to throw their authority and weight around.

He was acting like a man educated about his rights, a man who knew his rights, and a man who, due to his knowledge of his rights refused to have them trampled upon.

What I heard in the audio was 15+ minutes (I have heard the entire audio now) of refusal to answer one question.

Am I legally required to answer this question?

If they would answer that one question then the whole thing would have moved on. Largely because he was not legally required to answer that question and he knew he wasn't.

He didn't say "I don't know the law" because he didn't know the law. This is taught procedure.

You do NOT tell a power hungry rights steam roller that you know the law and they can or cannot do this. They will haul you in as sure as day out of pure anger. This is part of what is being taught in many places as people are educating themselves how to deal with situations like this.

You keep an attitude and speech that is above reproach as much as is possible.

It is the same as when someone is in court. You will often hear "calls for a legal conclusion" or such statements. That means that this person is not qualified to make such a conclusion.

Your average Joe is not allowed to make a legal conclusion because he is deemed not qualified to make or form a legal conclusion.

Understanding that part of the law you state that you do not understand a law which, truly, is tantamount to asking for a lawyer because when I state that I do not understand the law that calls for one who does... which would be my lawyer.

He can, with the right judge, actually get things like this thrown out because he asks... am I legally required to answer this question... if those agents say yes then they have made a legal conclusion and they are not qualified to make a legal conclusion.

The things that he did and said were well rehearsed and are being taught all over the United States these days.

As far as the DEA stuff goes. They didn't know something he didn't know. They were making idle threats because that is usually sufficient to make your average uneducated & scared stiff American to fold.

They met their well educated and highly articulate match that day.

Steve impressed the fire out of me.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

He was acting like a man educated about his rights, a man who knew his rights, and a man who, due to his knowledge of his rights refused to have them trampled upon.

What I heard in the audio was 15+ minutes (I have heard the entire audio now) of refusal to answer one question.

Am I legally required to answer this question?

If they would answer that one question then the whole thing would have moved on. Largely because he was not legally required to answer that question and he knew he wasn't.

He didn't say "I don't know the law" because he didn't know the law. This is taught procedure.

You do NOT tell a power hungry rights steam roller that you know the law and they can or cannot do this. They will haul you in as sure as day out of pure anger. This is part of what is being taught in many places as people are educating themselves how to deal with situations like this.

You keep an attitude and speech that is above reproach as much as is possible.

It is the same as when someone is in court. You will often hear "calls for a legal conclusion" or such statements. That means that this person is not qualified to make such a conclusion.

Your average Joe is not allowed to make a legal conclusion because he is deemed not qualified to make or form a legal conclusion.

Understanding that part of the law you state that you do not understand a law which, truly, is tantamount to asking for a lawyer because when I state that I do not understand the law that calls for one who does... which would be my lawyer.

He can, with the right judge, actually get things like this thrown out because he asks... am I legally required to answer this question... if those agents say yes then they have made a legal conclusion and they are not qualified to make a legal conclusion.

The things that he did and said were well rehearsed and are being taught all over the United States these days.

As far as the DEA stuff goes. They didn't know something he didn't know. They were making idle threats because that is usually sufficient to make your average uneducated & scared stiff American to fold.

They met their well educated and highly articulate match that day.

Steve impressed the fire out of me.

Digging,
These things you are saying are probably true, BUT this is still something that bothers me:

When Napolitano asked him about the money he said, "I'll tell you why I had the money and what I was doing, but don't tell law enforcement."

This whole clip with Napolitano and Steve did not educate me - at all. I learned nothing in accordance to the specifics of my rights by law in this situation.

They should have lined it out and gone into more detail for the viewers, but they didn't.

It was a shoddy interview, IMO. I'm sorry, Steve just came off like a smart donkey.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Digging,
These things you are saying are probably true, BUT this is still something that bothers me:

When Napolitano asked him about the money he said, "I'll tell you why I had the money and what I was doing, but don't tell law enforcement."

This whole clip with Napolitano and Steve did not educate me - at all. I learned nothing in accordance to the specifics of my rights by law in this situation.

They should have lined it out and gone into more detail for the viewers, but they didn't.

It was a shoddy interview, IMO. I'm sorry, Steve just came off like a smart donkey.

The show was being aired at the time and would be going up on youtube etc. The "don't tell the law enforcement" comment was made TIC and he even chuckled afterward.

What Steve did was a textbook operation in not waiving your rights (which Americans do left and right and not only in airports).

He knew them. He stuck by them. And, this time, he didn't go to jail.

If you stand for your rights in America you are, indeed, suspect because the law has become a law unto itself.

Only the educated are free.

[Digging4Truth]

By the way.

If anyone wants to learn more about the way to handle yourself, the words to speak, the actions to take that will help you maintain your rights in a meeting with law enforcement officers who do not know the boundaries of their authority and not have them trampled upon, taken away or accidentally waived you can go to http://www.flexyourrights.org/

Most law enforcement officers know and abide by the law and are not a threat to your rights & liberties. But when you meet up with one of those few who do not know the lines you had better know how to make the stand properly or you could find yourself in jail.

You still might... but you will at least have the best techniques at your disposal.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

The show was being aired at the time and would be going up on youtube etc. The "don't tell the law enforcement" comment was made TIC and he even chuckled afterward.

What Steve did was a textbook operation in not waiving your rights (which Americans do left and right and not only in airports).

He knew them. He stuck by them. And, this time, he didn't go to jail.

If you stand for your rights in America you are, indeed, suspect because the law has become a law unto itself.

Only the educated are free.

Digging,
I would have to see the TSA policy on questioning, detaining, search and seizure, etc. to form a final conclusion. I need to have the wording to verify that they cannot ask about the money. It seems with drug trafficking, there is something in place to prevent or look into suspicious moving of money through the airport.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

The show was being aired at the time and would be going up on youtube etc. The "don't tell the law enforcement" comment was made TIC and he even chuckled afterward.

What Steve did was a textbook operation in not waiving your rights (which Americans do left and right and not only in airports).

He knew them. He stuck by them. And, this time, he didn't go to jail.

If you stand for your rights in America you are, indeed, suspect because the law has become a law unto itself.

Only the educated are free.

They hire uneducated people. Then there is high turnover. At some time, what they are told to do and what travelers speak up and tell them they can't get by with creates conflict.

In studying turnover of boiler rooms running phone scams, at some point in time they also find out they are scamming. TSA folks find out they are screening for weapons and have to depart from suggestions that certain artifacts cause one to be a "conservative activist" or other militia person crying for an attack.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Digging,
I would have to see the TSA policy on questioning, detaining, search and seizure, etc. to form a final conclusion. I need to have the wording to verify that they cannot ask about the money. It seems with drug trafficking, there is something in place to prevent or look into suspicious moving of money through the airport.

Okay... he will have to remain guilty to you until proven innocent. Let me know how that turns out.

But... I can assure you there is nothing in their policy on people with too much money.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Okay... he will have to remain guilty to you until proven innocent. Let me know how that turns out.

But... I can assure you there is nothing in their policy on people with too much money.

I want to see the wording that TSA follows. If I took the case to court, I would want everything lined out in front of me. I want to win and I don't want to be surprised.

I don't have enough information here.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Digging,
I would have to see the TSA policy on questioning, detaining, search and seizure, etc. to form a final conclusion. I need to have the wording to verify that they cannot ask about the money. It seems with drug trafficking, there is something in place to prevent or look into suspicious moving of money through the airport.

They are not a drug trafficking agency. They are looking for weapons and doing a name search for file listed terrorists, people with outstanding warrants immigratin and law enforcement data bases.

Actually the view is wrong. It needs to show by law that they can ask about money. He knew that. There is no law that says it is illegal to carry non counterfeit currency. The right to possess legal tender is not removed during air travel.

To my knowledge, only Miami screens it's airport workers. If a baggage handler has more than 3 oz of salad dressing in his lunch pail, it is confiscated.

According to regulations against fraud, a citizen who enters Israel carrying more than NIS 80,000 must declare the money to customs authorities. Amsalam instead chose to pass through the "green" line reserved for passengers who are not carrying goods they need to declare.

I am not messing with you. Why in the world would drugs move in America using an airplane with inspectors? Same with money. If you had 500,000 on you for dope, you would never need to fly commercial and domestic.