Pay too much and you could raise the (homeland security) alarm - this is getting nuts

[The Straight Story]

Pay too much and you could raise the alarm

By BOB KERR
The Providence Journal
2006-02-28 00:00:00

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.
....

"We're a product of the '60s," he said. "We believe government should be way away from us in that regard."

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

...


They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.



http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RAISEALARM-02-28-06

[magellan]

1. I'm sure there was a story like this a year or so ago

I can't wait to see what wigs flap at der fatherland security when we make a balloon payment on our house in a few years. Without a loan.

[progressoid]

82. Two years ago perhaps. 2006-02-28

[havocmom]

2. Americans are supposed to remain indentured servants, unable to fend for themselves,

feed them selves, fix their own cars, make up their own minds. All else is a threat to the Corporate State.

If people got out of debt, the top 1% wouldn't be getting their regular pen money.

If people remembered humans were not always dependent on the corporations for every thing they used, the whole monetary system would crash.


Hey.... :think:

[greyghost]

18. You betcha!

[Kansas Wyatt]

37. Welcome to the Corporate Government Store!

Formerly known as the Company Store.

[cliffordu]

3. Beautiful. Land of the free home of the brave....

:sarcasm:

[MadMaddie]

4. 6500 is not a lot of money. It seems these alarms don't go

after the rich who could spend triple this dollar amount, it's only the middle class this is targeted at. Yea, something bigger is going on here and it's not good.

Are the Republicans that afraid of tax paying Americans?

[Captain Angry]

5. The point was that it wasn't a normal transaction for that account.

If they usually paid X, and all of a sudden paid 5X, it set off a flag.

The interesting part was that it's DHS that was involved, and not the FBI. The FBI is who should be looking at strange spending patterns. If somebody pays a bill like that, the Feds should check the bank accounts. If they see no unusual activity, then case closed. If they see the strange payment, and then find strange deposits, it warrants actual investigation.

DHS shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our account information.

[Solon]

12. It seems rather silly that such things would be investigated...

even with an "unusual" deposit. I'm reminded of my parents coming into some money because an Aunt my father hasn't met since he was a child died, I guess it was a little more than 10 years ago now. Not enough money to retire on, but still substantial considering his income, about 20 grand. The money was deposited in their account, then they used the money to buy a brand new refrigerator, an electric/glasstop oven, and a dishwasher. If I remember right, they used their Sears card on the Refrigerator and dishwasher and paid it off at the end of the month, and got the stove from a "dent discount" shop, and paid that with a cheque. I remember that because I went with my Mom to pay for it. The money left over went into their savings, I don't know exactly how much was left, I don't ask those type of questions. As far as I know, they had no difficulty accessing the money or spending it either.

In addition, considering their income and such, spending that much money within a month would be VERY noticeable to any investigator.

[barbtries]

29. 10 years ago was

not like today. there was no DHS 10 years ago.

[Captain Angry]

38. One or two out of the ordinary deposits aren't flags.

Thats where an investigation ends.

But if they take a look and see $20,000 deposits on a regular basis, without tax receipts to back them up, it gets another level of investigation.

Banks do many of the searches on their own due to fraud potential. If they see something, they can ask the FBI to take a look. No bank wants to be written up as the bank that was used to launder bin Laden's money.

I don't like it, but I know where they're coming from.

[Two Americas]

13. oh really?

"The FBI is who should be looking at strange spending patterns. If somebody pays a bill like that, the Feds should check the bank accounts. If they see no unusual activity, then case closed. If they see the strange payment, and then find strange deposits, it warrants actual investigation."

So "strange patterns" of behavior - with absolutely no evidence of a crime, let alone any eviodence against the suspect - warrant federal investigation? And who defines "strange?"

Where is probable cause? The presumption of innocence? The right to privacy? Good grief.

Effective police work consistent with the Bill of Rights demands that FIRST a crime must be committed - can there be anything more self-evident that that? - before law enforcement gets involved at all, let alone starts an investigation of a citizen. Watching citizens and their legal behavior and basing investigations on that is what a police state is about.

We wonder how we could be living in a country with an adminstration such as the one in power, why our country launched pre-emptive war, why our country tortures people and detains them indefinitely, why the victims of Katrina were treated as criminals, why our officals are breaking every law in a mad "ends justify the means" frenzy of moral depravity and authoritarianism.

We give them tacit permission when we ourselves do not hold fast to the principles and ideals that the administration is violating, and that our ancestors fought and died for.

[barbtries]

30. beautifully put

and exactly right

[Captain Angry]

41. Who defines strange?

The bank, and the FBI.

Thanks to the drug trade, money laundering and other fraudulent activities, banks run these searches on their own. If they see something unusual, they flag it. The FBI can take that flag and obtain a warrant, run the check, prove it's clean, and move on.

The FBI are busy enough that they should only be involved when a major anomaly occurs. I deposited the profits from my home sale into my checking account. That probably flagged something at the bank. But the bank also saw the source of the inflow, and was able to say that should check out. If they started seeing payments of that size on a regular basis with a strange source, they'd probably notify the Feds.

Thanks to the administration, we have to go through extra hoops to open accounts at all now.

Bottom line. A bank account is a privilege, not a right. Part of access to that privilege is having to deal with them monitoring for strange transactions. Since some people do illegal things that involve bank payments, we're all painted with the broad brush. The FBI can see transactions, know they're not out of line, and move on to a real investigation.

I'm not saying I like it. I am saying that I understand the process.

[Two Americas]

57. the Constitution

The bank would not be defining "strange" were the government not compelling them to, according to a definition created by government officials. So, no, the banks are not defining strange, and no one here is saying "banks are evil."

Accepting that the government defines "strange" and "unusual" as a pretext for criminal investigations is accepting tyranny.

The way you talk about this is frightening and disturbing. What you are describing is a complete abrogation of the Constitution - yet you make no mention of that essential fact as you "explain" this to us.

"There are a few criminals so unfortunately all of us are painted with a broad brush." Just the way it is. Ho hum. Painting all citizens with a "broad brush" - placing all of us under surveillance and suspicion, and then justifying that because there are some criminals out there - you are describing the rationale for a police state, yet you do so blandly and then object when others point out that you are describing the rationale for a police state.

[indepat]

69. Amen to all you say: investigations such as these are prima facie indication that a police state

has reached full maturation. Seig heil, mein comrade, long live the dictator. Let me proffer once and for all time: investigations such as these have absolutely nothing to do with national security or catching criminals, but are absolutely solely for controlling of we the people and seeking excuses to punish those among we the people deemed not to be with us, but rather "a'gin us." :mad: :D

[davekriss]

74. I strongly second Two Americas' remarks! (nt)

[Popol Vuh]

16. Check bank accounts?

Are you serious? What about: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....."?

I am sorry but I fail to see how an increased payment on a bill constitutes adequate probable cause.


This is just another brick in the wall.

[Captain Angry]

42. That was overkill, and as I said, the wrong organization to be involved.

That part makes no sense, and should be looked at by Congress since I believe that DHS way overstepped their boundaries.

That right to be secure in their papers does not extend after you've agreed to use a bank's services. If you choose to allow a bank to process your transactions, the bank is required to monitor certain accounts, countries of origin and such that may be used by laundering or terrorist activities.

The bar is supposed to be pretty high. The bank is supposed to run their report every day or two to identify strange transactions. If an account starts seeing flags, the bank will pass it on to the FBI. They'll do a real check, prove that it's nothing, and close the case.

[smoogatz]

25. Shouldn't they have to get a warrant first?

Shouldn't the standard for that warrant be probable cause? I don't think a $6500 payment on a credit card bill amounts to probable cause to suspect that you're committing a crime, no matter what the previous pattern of activity on that account might look like. I think what others here are saying is that this is yet another pretty egregious example of the abrogation of the 4th amendment. The Constitution says this stuff shouldn't happen, but apparently it's happening all the time.

[Captain Angry]

44. The bank can flag transactions.

And then the FBI can obtain a warrant if necessary.

The DHS should never have been in there, and Congress should beat them with a stick.

One payment should not have been a flag. And the bank should have been able to see the flag, see the money sitting in their accounts, and say "it's cool." Didn't happen here, and I'd love to see more information about this story.

[scarletwoman]

32. I'm absolutely shocked that you think that ANY part of the gov't has ANY business watching

its citizens' financial transactions.

Seriously. What someone does with their own money ought to be of no concern to anyone other than the other party in the financial transaction.

I can't believe that you're so willing to throw the right of privacy over the side!

[Captain Angry]

45. Thanks for indicting me for Reagan policies.

I didn't choose this. I don't support this.

I understand the process, and know how it's supposed to be applied. It's a flag system. One payment is supposed to raise a flag and that's all. Inflows from certain countries or organizations are major flags. Outflows to certain countries or organizations are major flags. This case is very strange and I'd like to see more information. I think DHS was way out of line here.

The right to privacy of money left when you signed up for a bank account. Before it was in the fine print. Now you are told about it as you sign up for an account.

Dealing with transaction screening is one of the prices we pay for not having to conduct our business in cash. When you use a bank's transmission system, you're subject to the federal screening practices.

I didn't write these laws. I just tried to explain it a little.

[scarletwoman]

50. There was no way to tell from what you wrote in your post that you did NOT support this policy.

Here's what you wrote:

The FBI is who should be looking at strange spending patterns. If somebody pays a bill like that, the Feds should check the bank accounts. (my bold)

Excuse me for not being able to read your unwritten non-support of this.

(edited for bad html)

[Captain Angry]

54. Thus the difficulty of communicating on web forums in text.

I shouldn't have to make a huge emotional appeal in either direction. I was just trying to explain the process.

The FBI should be looking at the patterns, not the DHS. There is a process. I don't believe it was followed.


This probably explains why my threads about dead soldiers sink into oblivion with 30 reads while a thread with one sentence "BANKS ARE EVIL" get 50 recs, 200 replies and thousands of reads.

I think I'm in the wrong place. This place didn't used to be conspiracy central.

[Two Americas]

56. defending human rights from tyranny

Defending human rights and opposing tyranny are not "emotional appeals."

Ironically, saying "conspiracy central" and characterizing the positions of others as "BANKS ARE EVIL" are themselves emotional appeals.

You say that you "shouldn't have to make a huge emotional appeal in either direction." What are the two directions that you imagine?

I reject your claim that you are merely neutrally reporting the facts and that anything else would be an
"emotional appeal."

Where is the "conspiracy theory" you are alluding to that others are talking about? How can people expressing their alarm about this be characterized as promoting a "conspiracy theory?"

[Two Americas]

52. yes you do

You claim that you didn't choose this, that you don't like this. But you did and you do. "Liking" has nothing to do with anything - defending this is the only sort of "liking" that is possible or meaningful. People have done horrendous things and then claimed "I don't like it, but what can you do? It needs to be done." Their protestations of "not liking it" are meaningless.

You "choose" this, in the only way that you have the power to choose it, when you say things like "the right to privacy of money left when..."

Rights don't ever "leave." Rights can not be traded away, or they were not rights to begin with. Trading away liberty for security destroys both.

You aren't "explaining" and of course you didn't write the laws. You are defending the need for them, and you are promoting a destructive and dangerous concept of rights.

Of course you didn't write the laws, and who cares whether or not you "like" it? There is no more destructive thing within your power that you could do than what you are doing right here.

[Captain Angry]

55. Wow.

So, me not liking it is meaningless, but all the replies of other people calling out the police state are just fine?


Glad to know that it's me that is the destructive one. Not the Congress that ok's this stuff, not Bush who signs it, just me. The guy who said this is the way this works right now, and here's where I think they went wrong.


I see your point. Next time I'll just yell that I'm pulling all of my money out of the bank so that they can't see the pizza I just paid for.

[Two Americas]

59. no

You saying that you don't like it is meaningless. Your claim to merely be describing "this is the way this works right now" is disingenuous.

Your opinion, as you stated here again and as opposed to a mere recitation of facts, is that the only thing that bothers you about this is that the wrong agency handled it.

By the way, why would "people calling out the police state" be a problem? How is that "destructive?"

Your dismissive and contemptuous remark about your pizza further illustrates your reactionary view on this vital issue, and contradicts your claim to merely be reciting facts and "explaining" things to us. Nothing good could possibly ever come from ridiculing people for being concerned about the growing police state - and that is exactly what you are doing here.

Just because you are not overtly and honestly expressing your stance, but rather are sneaking it in under the guise of "explaining" things, that does not exempt you from being challenged on your remarks.

[A HERETIC I AM]

62. How the hell is it possible to suggest a simple explanation of the facts is a "reactionary view"?

Why is it that you and many other DU'rs make assumptions about a persons perspective on a subject, merely because he or she accurately describes it?

Captain Angry accurately explained why and when a red flag is waved and said plainly he disagreed with the procedure in this case. Why and how is this POSSIBLY "disingenuous"?

The fact is, Captain Angry knows what the hell he is talking about.

The question is, do you?

[Two Americas]

71. I explained how

The posts I objected to were not a case of someone "accurately describing" the subject, and I more than adequately demonstrated and supported that.

[A HERETIC I AM]

61. "Rights don't ever "leave". Oh really?

Rights don't ever "leave." Rights can not be traded away, or they were not rights to begin with. Trading away liberty for security destroys both.

Bullshit. Do you think you can not sign away certain rights under a contract? The answer is, Yes absodamnlutely, you can. If you have ever opened a checking account or ANY account with a Financial Institution of ANY kind, you have signed away certain rights. If you have ever been in the Military, you signed away a SHITLOAD of rights. If you've ever signed a lease agreement, etc. If you don't think a Bank can do with your account information what it needs to do under the law or is required to do by a regulatory agency, you're mistaken.

[Two Americas]

70. strange idea of rights

Rights are presumed to be inherent, or they are not rights. One can waive their rights, yes. Somone else can violate your rights, yes. But the existence of rights is not contingent on that, or they would not be rights - they would be privileges.

Can't believe that we even have these arguments here.

So you disagree with the following statement?

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

If not, what is your argument exactly?

[Lorien]

34. Do you really believe that the FBI should be allowed to snoop around our

account information?

Hell, I'm self employed. Every once in a while I get a huge influx of contracts and can make $10,000 in a month. What business is it of the Federal governments if I made 3.5k or 10k in May? Does paying down my home equity line with a few large checks mean that I'm a threat to society, or are they protecting bank profits by encouraging debt?

[Captain Angry]

46. Large checks don't make you a threat.

Your inflow/outflow pattern would be flagged once in a while. The bank itself would see the source of inflows/outflows. If they felt something weird was going on, they'd hand it to the FBI. The FBI would check, see everything's cool, and move on.

If you start receiving large wire transfers from certain countries, and cashing them or transferring them out again to somebody else, you're going to get a very close look. Thank the war on drugs and post-9/11 banking transaction monitoring systems that were enacted.

It's a tool to allow them to find accounts that may be involved in laundering or illegal activities. That's why this specific case is so weird. The DHS should not have been in there at all. I want to read more on this case to see how they really got involved.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. What is interesting is that law enforcement should be involved

in your private financial transactions at all. This is a matter between you and your credit card company. Absent a probable cause and the search warrant that validates that a judge has agreed that such cause exists, the state has no valid authority to dig into your private affairs. But then again your individual rights are a mere quaint artifact from an earlier enlightened age.

[Captain Angry]

47. I agree.

Law enforcement should have been involved at the bank side *IF* there were strange inflows. One outflow to a Sears account should never have sent up a flag.

This should be investigated since DHS shouldn't have been in there at all.

It's very strange, and I'd like to read more on this case.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. I don't think you get it.

I could be wrong, but the constitution (as in the bill of rights) is really quite clear on this, your affairs are private, including your financial transactions, and that privacy can only be breached by the state through a warrant. Laws to the contrary, such as the automatic reporting of transactions exceeding some artificial threshold, long in place since we gave up on individual rights during our stupid war on some drugs, are simply unconstituional no matter what some idiot corrupt judge on our highest court might think. The state can say 'be afraid' and then take away our rights, and we might go along with it, but our rights, as Mr. Jefferson pointed out, are self evident and inalienable.

[Captain Angry]

53. I get it.

At DU, I should have just yelled "Oh no, the dirty government" instead of trying to calmly explain how the process works. This place is more and more like a Ron Paul site every day. I understand the Constitution, and the 200 year old laws that didn't foresee a day where you could move millions of dollars around the world through electronic banking transactions.


If banks are going to be used to hide financing transactions between druglords, the Mafia, bin Laden, Enron types, so be it, right? Just as long as nobody can see that you paid $12.50 for lunch?

There should be a more intelligent transaction monitor. Payments in/out of the country or to organizations already involved in an investigation should be open season. Large payments from one bank account to a credit card opened on the same Social Security Number should not raise any flags.

[Two Americas]

60. amazing

You continue to defend this, and to insult and ridicule the rest of us. DU is like a Ron Paul site?

And you still claim to be "calmly explaining how the process works?"

So electronics render the Constitution obsolete? Searching a bag on a horse without a warrant and probable cause - or watching all bags on all horses - is not different than this.

Are you asking us to believe that bad guys are something new, and that the authors of the Bill of Rights couldn't imagine bad guys? Are you asking us to think that the amount of money being moved changes our rights? - you actually are describing "rights" as though they were government granted privileges.

YES! Of course! The government not seeing that I "paid $12.50 for lunch" is exactly what the Revolution was about. What do you think it was about?

How can you dismissively sneer at these fundamental principles of liberty? "200 year old laws" - people have died to defend those "200 year old laws" so they could be passed down to us, and you piss on that.

Ooooooh... drug lords and bin Laden and the Mafia! Millions of dollars!! Around the world! Talk about an "emotional appeal."

[A HERETIC I AM]

64. Holy shit! I get it now.

You're clueless. That's the only possible explanation.

[Two Americas]

72. odd

Why do my comments bother you to the point that you feel they warrant personal attacks?

[Wednesdays]

84. OMG

"I understand the Constitution, and the 200 year old laws that didn't foresee a day where you could move millions of dollars around the world through electronic banking transactions."

So, the Bill of Rights is obsolete?

Unreal.

[High Plains]

43. Why should ANYBODY be looking at my spending patterns?

Fuck off, big brother.

[NashVegas]

76. I Pissed Off Our Office Managers For Years

By refusing to get my paycheck direct deposited. Finally relented for one reason or another, but when I see stuff like this, it makes me regret that.

[MadMaddie]

78. The DHS should be dismantled once we have a Democratic

president.

It is an organization gone bad from the beginning.

[Lochloosa]

90. You have lost me with your argument

Since when is it any fucking business of the FBI or HLS how much or why I decide to pay off my bills.

If this is the level of "Probable Cause" in this country, and we accept that, we have lost.

[HuffleClaw]

6. WTF ????

that is lunacy

[earth mom]

7. Meanwhile a slew of DUers are supporting 2 corporatists who don't give a damn about them!

:argh:

[bean fidhleir]

15. Yep, and will continue to do so without even a thought to spare for what they're doing

[Individualist]

28. It makes one wonder when people are going to stop letting money and TV determine

who they'll vote for. :banghead:

[LWolf]

49. Yep. n/t

[high density]

75. Gore 08?

He wasn't a corporatist when he was pushing NAFTA in the 1990s?

[DeSwiss]

8. Washington needs an idiot enema.

Quickly.

- K&R!!!

[upi402]

11. lol

:rofl:

[Hekate]

9. Kick

I'm speechless at the insanity of it all.

Hekate

:kick:

[MrModerate]

10. I'm not sure what's more distressing about this story:

1) The fact that DHS has arrogated to itself the right to suckle our laundry even when there's no earthly reason to do so, or 2) the mind-boggling stupidity of the criteria set in place as a trigger.

I suppose the subtle genius of such a tactic is beyond me. Who would have thought we'd defeat terrorism by making them laugh themselves to death?

[onethatcares]

14. I guess Total Information Awareness never went out of style

and no one should be able to squirrel a bit of money away a day at a time,a week at a time, to actually save for a reason, and what better reason than to pay off credit card debt?

[DCKit]

17. Damn, now I'm afraid to sell my house.

They'll probably throw me in GITMO if I deposit the check.

[NM Independent]

19. That raises the hair on my neck...

...that's some serious police state BS.

Freakin spooky.


P.S. My wife says you're cute

[The Straight Story]

39. Which pic :)

The avatar is me, sig is wife :)

[NM Independent]

73. Ah, I see

The wife. Sorry, I'd ask her about you to make you feel better, but she's passed out right now. :)

[OregonBlue]

20. Let's all forward to Lou Dobbs. I don't like him but this is the kinda thing that really gets his

dander up!!

[Occulus]

21. This is probably going to happen to me to one degree or another this year

I intend to pay off my TV all at once, in a single lump. That's me, cutting a $2500 check- the largest single payment on anything I've ever made.

So, does anyone have any advice? I want to do it all at once and get it off my back (I've been saving for the lump sum since I "bought" it on a nopaymentnointerestsameascashforeighteenmonths plan), but at the same time, I don't want to get a letter or a knock at my door. The amount they paid in the OP isn't all that much more than what I'll be paying, and again, it'll be the largest single payment on anything I've ever made- by a goodly amount, actually.

So what should I plan for?

[smoogatz]

23. Pay it off.

Don't worry about it. My guess is that the CC company was actually full of shit, and that they were holding the customer's check through an additional interest cycle so they could squeeze a little more blood out of them. Then, when questioned, they blamed it on DHS. Of course if it's true then we've got something even creepier going on—Carnivore in action.

[Lorien]

35. 2500 is a pretty insignificant amount. I wouldn't worry about it

I write 4-5k checks all the time and my income probably isn't that much more than yours-it's just that my clients pay me in large lump sums, so my debts always get paid off in large lump sums (I sometimes go two or three months without a paycheck). I've never encountered any problems, but I also don't have credit cards. I wonder if this is just a scare tactic by the CC companies to keep people in debt?

:shrug:

[Occulus]

88. See, that's the thing, the check I'm going to write is an unusual amount.

Like I said, it'll be the single largest check I've ever written. That and that alone will very likely raise a red flag somewhere.

I'm not overly concerned, mind you; I'm just dead certain what happened in the OP will very likely happen to me.

If it does, you better believe I'll post about it.

[smoogatz]

22. If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.

Whatever you do, don't pay down your credit cards. What good American patriot wouldn't want to pay 25% compound interest for the rest of his/her life?

[Billy Burnett]

24. "And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted."

I wonder what would happen if this delay resulted in late charges or credit reports.

Shock and awe.

[Uben]

26. Can't

They have proof of payment

[Occulus]

89. I bet they go by when they actually get the money

and that certainly could result in late fees, etc.

I refuse to put them above this behavior.

[barbtries]

27. what the fuck?!

this is absurd. don't forget it's our taxes that pay for this kind of crap.

[VP505]

31. This Homeland this Homeland that shit

is just getting out of hand. I understand that as long as shrub is squatting in the White House Congress isn't going to be able to change much of that stuff, but. As important as Iraq and the economy might be, I want the next President to put restoring the Constitutional Rights we are all supposed to be entitled to as priority number one. We need to start DEMANDING that the Candidates address how they plan to undo, redo and or eliminate all of that homeland be sacred of the bogeyman crap * has shoved on us.

[POAS]

33. Oh great now I can look forward to

a visit by Homeland Security because I just paid off my truck 2 years early with $7000 out of my savings.

[mantis49]

63. Wonderful.....

I'm preparing to pay off my house, about $11,000, in the next week or so. I suppose I should look forward to a visit, too.

[POAS]

81. It's just so un-American to

pay your debts!

[Lorien]

36. Aside from the sickening implications of the story, Bob Kerr can't write

for shit:

"referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible"


"Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me"


"Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up."




:banghead:


I hope the professionals will write about this crap. The Right Wingers who voted for the cabal need to read about this infringement on our privacy too.

[NashVegas]

77. Nothing Really Wrong With Any of Those

Depending on what style book the publication uses. A little wordy but grammatically correct, I think.

[Lorien]

86. No, not correct. They should read

"referring to the recent decision that he and his wife made to be responsible"


"Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and this reporter"


"Eventually the couple's funds were made available."


Though I'm sure there are other ways of phrasing those sentences, it does get distracting when the writing is so informal and the grammar so incorrect that it seems more like a post on a discussion board than a report from a reputable news service. A friend of mine is the News director at a local PBS station and she says that this is a constant battle for her every day, even though her reporters have degrees from top universities!

It appears that in the land of "no child left behind", a lot of them have been when in comes to using the English language.

[NashVegas]

91. They're Just Fine

I deleted a lengthy show and tell, it's not worth going into. I think you're nitpicking.

[Rex]

51. DHS loves to play the Stupid Fascists role.

They always suspect the working class and never the uber rich or wealthy. Fucking biased assholes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. "The land of the free, and the home of the brave." Bwahahahahaahhaaha.

The Emperor has no clothes.

[lumpy]

65. Homeland Sec. should be dismantled. This has nothing to

do with security of the US. They are controlling every facet of our lives from Police depts to libraries. It's Fascist controll baby.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

66. We have been so fucked and Congress does nothing.

[FlyingSquirrel]

67. Hey, I was just gonna use my tax refund to pay off most of my WaMu card

It's at 22% interest. My normal payment is about $85 and I was gonna pay $2000. Will this affect me?

[The Straight Story]

68. Just break up the payments and do one a day for $85

;)

[progressoid]

80. We paid off a large amount on an MBNA card without incident.

After a house refinance, we paid of some debts (actually just transferred the debts to the home loan). But we didn't have any problems.

If you are concerned, call them first to alert them. Also, this incident was a couple years ago. Hopefully they've calmed down by now.

[Lorien]

87. It shouldn't

the article doesn't make a statement that this is now a National policy.

[verdalaven]

79. Just wondering here.....

If they had spent that money on a new flat screen television with surround sound and other toys, would DHS have been notified?

Edited to add that I think probably not. Reports like this just make me crazy.

[Crabby Appleton]

83. This story is a couple years old

My recollection is that the credit card company JC Penny Master Card not DHS had put a hold on crediting the card account until the bank transaction cleared. They also may or may not have had a SAR filed.

This OCC BSA manual of would have been in effect at the time, $5000 or suspicious structuring activity could get you reported.
see page 11 (acrobat page 14)
http://www.occ.treas.gov/handbook/bsa.pdf

[Xenotime]

85. This should be a warning to people trying to pay off thier credit card too early.