Will bank squeal?

[adorno]

I paid for some hydro equipment with a cashiers cheque, had to collect it from the bank. The woman assisting me got me the cheque, and asked who it was to be made out to. I said something like 'Illegal Hydro# or something (not the actual name you understand) and she repeated it.

Are there any kind of privacy laws or anytghing that would prevent this woman maknig the obvious (*though erroneous)*connection between my purchase and its intended use. A bit stupid really, i should have said i'd fill in the payee details meself

 

[Safari]

You didn't do anything wrong. There are a million things you could by from a hydro that don't have anything to do with MJ. Even if she did call the cops, what could she tell them? You bought a money order to a made up hydro store.

Don't sweat it!

 

[Guest]

dont sweat it. but dont do it again you catch my drift. cashier checks can be traced right back to you. you want anonymous aka money order, cash, prepaid credit card, ect.

 

[farmerbill9]

cash, always. if you want to be on the safe side

 

[WARDONE]

nah dont worry bro you will be fine

 

[Trichome Toker]

Yeah you should be fine.

Now if you deposit $75,000 in cash or something, then you have something to worry about.

Banks don't have a law requiring them to report that type of shit though, like who your checks are made out to.

 

[Guest]

even though they won't report it necessarily, bank tellers DO talk. they get bored during the slow parts of the day. i know cause i was one for a while. just try to not do it at a local bank where word might get around.

 

[Guest]

if ya act suspicoius then ya may look suspicious... in case you didn't know, most hydro store purchases are made by tomato growers... the pepper growers buy some stuff too but not as much as the tomater guys.

 

[Martha Stewart]

Don't trust banks, DON'T EVER TRUST PayPal!!!!!!!

Cash, or money-orders, and You'll be fine.
And rule #1 still always applies, don't tell/smell/sell...

Martha S.

 

[gl.pirate]

I think most, if not all, banks must fill in the information themselves for a cashier's check. While a certain check won't be reported to the feds, every cashier's check is on record at the bank if needed.

Just to clarify what Trichome Toker said, the limits are a lot lower than 75000 to call attention. A bank MUST report transactions totaling 10,000 or more within one day. They are also required to submit forms if the transactions are over 3,000 and the activity is not normal for the individual. These reports go directly to the feds.

Overall, I wouldn't worry one bit about it. Like many before me said, the best is to use cash. Second best is a MO if you aren't required to give personal information. Some places are requiring it now after the patriot act.

Take it easy.
gl.pirate

 

[Mrs.Babba]

I work at a bank and it makes no difference who the check is made out to...do you have an account there?? ....some banks do an OFAC check[on non customers only] but thats just to see of your on the terrorist list, not who you want the CC made out to. they wont say anything, I wouldnt worry about it tho...

 

[pugnacious]

I think most, if not all, banks must fill in the information themselves for a cashier's check. While a certain check won't be reported to the feds, every cashier's check is on record at the bank if needed.

Just to clarify what Trichome Toker said, the limits are a lot lower than 75000 to call attention. A bank MUST report transactions totaling 10,000 or more within one day. They are also required to submit forms if the transactions are over 3,000 and the activity is not normal for the individual. These reports go directly to the feds.

Overall, I wouldn't worry one bit about it. Like many before me said, the best is to use cash. Second best is a MO if you aren't required to give personal information. Some places are requiring it now after the patriot act.

Take it easy.
gl.pirate

Anything over 10k and the bank is obligated to report you to the fed. You do 3 3k transactions in one day, the bank is obligated to report you. Transactions over 3k does not need any forms or anything like that.

 

[Guest]

Pugnacious its 5k now. the feds are moving in.. we will be down to a very low cash flow in the states.. then the Amero will arrive to take its place. at least that's the word on the street
But for sure the limit is 5k now (then after that the IRS wants the bank to make you tell them where you got the cash from). the scums are taking away all my fun! It "was" fun to walk up to the cute 17 year old teller girl, and slap down 9 grand and tell her to put it in savings.. /awe the glory.. ALL GONE !!! hahah be safe everyone, the division of the classes is at hand....

Cannabismavin,

 

[pugnacious]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148821,00.html

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


copy and paste that link. DO NOT DIRECTLY CLICK IT.



you need to check your resources bro. who ever told you forsure this, and forsure that, is talking out of his ass. the reason why the rumor started was because the department of homeland security tried to pass a bill that wanted such a thing. but once the homeland defense bill was reviewed it was edited and toned down alot because it was obvious that civil rights were being trampled on. technically, civil rights are being trampled on, but its blantly done to foreigners, especially muslims.


but yeah, to keep a low profile you shouldnt go over 5k.

 

[Guest]

If you're cruising around with 3 grand in your pocket, you're a threat to all growers and their friends. In the US there isn't anything that can't be purchased with check, CC or atm - the only characters with 3 grand in their pocket are probably dealers and their thugs. just my 2 cents on that. And don't take that to mean I think it's OK for LEOs to dictate that you have too much cash on you, I'm still trying to figure out how it got to this point in the first place. The "Land of the Free" is a myth.

As for buying at a hydro store, nothing about your transaction is against any laws. The last time I looked, three greenhouse suppliers in our area had over 30,000 hydro customers-and that's just our local state area. Multiply that by the number of counties and states with hydro shops and the figure is staggering to some. Point is, hydro equipment is a big business in farming circles. Don't mention canabis-specific questions or comment and you are just another customer.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, all US banks will comply with a Federal warrant or complaint. If they didn't they wouldn't get FDIC insurance. Our state, for example, went into our joint checking account and cleaned it out for back sales and use taxes on online cigarette purchases. They can do it once every 90 days. If they have this power they certainly have the means to access your bank records and purchase history, but you'd have to be a pretty big fish in the pool to waste resources and manpower for that.

Don't let the Panic Warriors win by turning you into a raving paranoia freak. You are doing nothing illegal until you decide to defy Federal laws and grow a controlled substance without a license. In the 60's that cost me $5 fine and time served overnight. Think about it, the LEO's paychecks are funded by the high profile busts, why would they be interested in you or what you purchased from an amerikan business licensed to sell in the US. The day LEO gets that kind of power, 90% of citizens would have to be cops or informers. Hope I'm long dead when that happens, and it will if people don't wake up to what's happening to their civil rights and actually do something about it.

Off my soapbox, sorry for the rant - old farts tend to drift on......

 

[Guest]

is there a flawed logic in carrying the money in a safe spot in your home and once a week drop 1-2k to ensure no eyebrows raised? lets be honest if your depositing something like 600 weekly from your job and then out of the blue start dropping 3-5k, if i was the bank teller i would look at you funny. It doesnt mean they can legally do anything to you but knowing how I look if i all of a sudden deposit 5k in my bank they will automatically think "drug dealer"

 

[pugnacious]

I dont know about anyone carrying over 3k is a threat to all growers but i always respect my elders. All im trying to do is trying to seperate the bullshit rumors and the facts. Us potheads have this grapevine that is more exagerated and entertaining then commericial hollywood movies.

 

[per]

worry about "snitches" ,not bank bitches

could be unrelated but a good read ,for i have had the "ratsnitch" (my own trusting fault of kindness..that unfortunatly is no longer around....





http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20061221.html
----
A New Website Claims It is Publishing the Names of Confidential Informants and Undercover Government Agents: Why It's Legal For It to Do So
By ANITA RAMASASTRY
----
Thursday, Dec. 21, 2006

Is it legal for a website to publish the names and photos of persons its users claim are criminal informants (often referred to as "rats" or "snitches"), or undercover police agents? A website called "Who's a Rat" says it is doing just that.

While it's understandable that judges and the police are outraged by the site, the site appears perfectly legal - and it seems it will remain so, unless it ever were to actually threaten informants or undercover agents.



Absent such a threat, the content of the web site is protected by the First Amendment. In this column, I'll explain why - drawing upon a key precedent relating to speech online that may be linked to potential real-world violence.

The WhosaRat.com Site: The Information It Contains, and Its Stated Purpose

According to news reports, Sean Bucci, a former Boston-area DJ, created WhosaRat.com after he was charged with allegedly selling marijuana in bulk out of his apartment.

On the site, each listing may include an informant's or officer's full name, age, address, and occupation, as well as agencies for which he or she works. The information also includes facts that may bring his or her credibility into question; any known criminal record; and a photo, if available (photos of undercover agents are not posted on the site for safety reasons). Users need to supply their own contact information, or that of their lawyers, when posting information or comments. Users can also post court documents or government records. The site used to be free, but now its database is subscription-only, and can be accessed only for a fee.

What is the site's purpose? The site itself says it is "a database driven website designed to assist attorneys and criminal defendants with few resources. The purpose of this website is for individuals and attorneys to post, share and request any and all information that has been made public at some point to at least one person of the public prior to posting it on this site pertaining to local, state and federal Informants and Law Enforcement Officers." (Emphasis added.) In other words, the site's stated intention is that truly confidential information should never be posted.

It is easy to see why this website could be of use to criminal defense attorneys and criminal defendants attempting to impeach the credibility of their accusers. Moreover, to the extent that the website flushes out reliable information as to credibility, it may end up serving the cause of justice by preventing wrongful convictions.

Moreover, some who contribute to the website see it as only fair play: Since the government is compiling databases on various citizens and suspects, they feel it is only just that citizens do the same thing, and watch the watchers.

Column continues below «
Why the Site Is Of Great Concern to Judges and the Police

On the other hand, however, many worry the site will be used for other purposes: to gain information for retaliation against the informants and agents, or to avoid detection for ongoing criminal schemes. Currently, there seems to be a strong backlash against informants in a number of communities, which has even led to T-shirts proclaiming, "Stop Snitching," and some see the site as part of this backlash.

No wonder recent news reports indicate that judges are worried about the safety of witnesses who may be outed on the site. And no wonder, too, that police expect that, due to the site's existence, fewer people may cooperate with law enforcement and testify in court on the side of the prosecution.

The Planned Parenthood Case: In Some Cases, True Hit Lists Can Be Illegal

But can the site be blamed for the fact that it could be misused? From a First Amendment perspective, the answer is no.

It's notable that the website states, "THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT PROMOTE OR CONDONE VIOLENCE OR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AGAINST INFORMANTS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS." It also asks that visitors only post information relating to non-violent crimes - perhaps in order to reduce the chance that the site will be used by the violent, in order to plan further violence. Moreover, no actual violence has yet been traced to the site.

Based on these facts, the website is quite different from the site at issue in the most relevant precedent: Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc., et al., v. American Coalition of Life Activists, et al. There, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed a site to be closed down -- despite First Amendment objections -- because it contained what appeared to be a virtual "hit list" of abortion doctors, along with their addresses. Several of the doctors listed had earlier been murdered; the defendants' list put strikes through the names of murdered doctors, and grayed out the names of those who had been wounded.

Accordingly, a slim majority of the Ninth Circuit en banc panel concluded that "even though the defendants were responsible neither for the earlier 'wanted posters' nor the earlier killings, the context created by those posters and killings gave the defendants' posters and website a threatening meaning." (When a federal circuit seeks to review the decision of one of its three-judge panel, the larger panel that reviews the original decision is known as an "en banc" panel.)

It's important to note that even the Planned Parenthood decision - which was based on facts much more dramatic and troubling than the facts currently surrounding WhosaRat.com -- was a close one. It split the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's en banc panel 6-5.

Another Precedent: A Criminal Defendant Is Allowed To Keep His Case Website

Another precedent is also very relevant to the legal status of Whosarat.com. In 2004, Leon Carmichael, an Alabama man charged with money laundering and drug trafficking offenses, won a federal court case, in the Middle District of Alabama, in which prosecutors sought to have him take down his carmichaelcase.com web site.

The site had contained the names and photos of four supposed informants, and of one DEA agent involved in the case against Carmichael. The site posted their photos under the heading, "WANTED: Information on These Informants and Agent." The website also included a disclaimer stating that the site was "definitely not an attempt to harass or intimidate any informants or agents, but is simply an attempt to seek information." Carmichael included the contact information for his attorney as well.

Despite the disclaimer, federal prosecutors argued that the website, in effect, threatened the informants and the agent. However, a federal judge held that Carmichael was entitled to maintain the web site based on both his First Amendment rights to free speech, and his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to defend himself. The judge also concluded that attempting to force Carmichael to take the site down was the kind of "prior restraint" the First Amendment prohibits. The judge viewed the website as the same as other "time-tested investigative techniques," such as canvassing a neighborhood for witnesses, that are often used to mount a defense in a criminal case.

The court distinguished the Planned Parenthood precedent by pointing out that "Carmichael's website was not put up in the context of a recent string of murders linked to similar publications," and thus could not be construed as, in effect, a threat. The court said it might have seen an analogy to Planned Parenthood "if there was a history of witnesses or government agents being threatened or killed after the release of 'wanted-style' posters on which they were pictured," but noted no such pattern existed with respect to the Carmichael case.

Based on these two precedents, it seems quite clear that, as long as the WhosaRat.com site is simply a clearinghouse of names of informants and agents - without any history of violence connected to the site, or any specific intent to harm the informants or agents - it will remain protected by the First Amendment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


American Website Reveals Identity of Police Agents and Informants
November 30th, 2006 ·
An article from the Associated Press reports that a Boston area disc-jockey named Sean Bucci started the website whosarat.com. The website offers biographical information about people whom users identify as witnesses or undercover agents. Apparently, users can post court documents, comments and pictures.

The site was started in 2004 and is described as a clearinghouse for mug shots, court papers, and rumors. The site was previously free to access but now a token membership fee is required. The Associated press reports that a whosarat.com website spokesperson described the site as a resource for defendants but claimed that the site does not condone violence.

The Associated Press quoted the spokesperson as follows:

“If people got hurt or killed, it’s kind of on them. They knew the dangers of becoming an informant,” Capone said. “We’d feel bad, don’t get me wrong, but things happen to people. If they decide to become an informant, with or without the Web site, that’s a possibility.”

Obviously the spokesperson for whosarat.com is an idiot. By allowing anyone to upload pictures and documents there is no control over the accuracy of the information. Anyone identified as a police officer, agent, or witness is placed at risk and are potential targets. Once labeled a rat, whether accurate or not, the person is placed in jeopardy.

I would be surprised if the authorities are able to shut down whosarat.com. Apparently, one DEA officer has already had his cover blown by the website. I would hope that this officer or another files a lawsuit against whosarat.com and bankrupts anyone associated to it for the impact that it has on their career. This type of website is irresponsible.

12/21/06 at 02:37 PM

 

[Guest]

i heard of banks narcing when money smells o ganja dont smoke around the stack of benjis and u are ok