See the FBI Dig Through an Innocent Woman's Safe Deposit Box

In a lawsuit, attorneys for the box's owner allege that federal agents conducted an illegal search that may have resulted in the loss of some valuable gold coins.


Box 8309 was just one of the hundreds of safe deposit boxes that ended up in the government's possession when federal agents raided a private vault in Beverly Hills, California, on March 22.

Federal agents took those boxes, as Reason previously reported, even though they did not have a warrant for them or their contents. The business that housed them, U.S. Private Vaults, is suspected of conspiracy to distribute drugs, launder money, and avoid mandatory deposit reporting requirements. But the unsealed warrant authorizing the raid of U.S. Private Vaults granted the FBI permission to seize only the business's computers, money counters, security cameras, and large steel frames that effectively act as bookshelves for the boxes themselves. Per FBI rules, however, the boxes could not be left unsecured in the vault after the raid had been completed, so agents had to take them into custody too.

In the days following the raid, federal agents were tasked with identifying the boxes' innocent owners so their valuables could be returned. This should have been a relatively straightforward process. It was not.

More than two months after the raid, Box 8309 (and its contents) is one of hundreds of safe deposit boxes that remain in FBI custody even though the owners have been charged with no crimes. The box is now at the center of a lawsuit filed last month in U.S. District Court.

But the story of what happened to Box 8309 after it entered FBI custody—a story told via screenshots from a video now entered as evidence in that lawsuit—should infuriate anyone who believes in constitutional limits on law enforcement. The screenshots, some of which are presented below after being obtained by Reason (see the rest here), show what attorneys representing Box 8309 and its owner say is an "illegal search" falling outside what was authorized by the warrant against U.S. Private Vaults.

There are a few things to keep in mind before we begin. First and foremost is the fact that the FBI's warrant for U.S. Private Vaults explicitly said it "does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safe-deposit boxes." Second, recall that the FBI did have a good reason for opening Box 8309 and the rest, as agents needed to find a way to identify the owners. The question, then, is whether federal agents went beyond what was necessary to identify the box's owner—and in the case of Box 8309, it certainly appears that they did.

In the first screenshot, an FBI agent tasked with identifying Box 8309's owner can be seen removing the box from the "nest" to open it. Notice the paper taped to the lid of the box, which will become significant in a moment.

Next, the agent opens the letter taped to the top of the box, which contains all the necessary information to identify the box's owner—identified in legal filings as "Linda R.," an 80-year-old woman who had stored a significant portion of her retirement savings in Box 8309. That, too, will be significant later on.

The documents taped to the lid of the box even include a copy of Linda R's driver's license. There can no longer be any doubt about the owner of the contents of Box 8309.

Still, the agent decides to pop open the lid and take a look inside…

…and to tear open sealed envelopes found inside Box 8309.

Again, keep in mind that the warrant that allowed the FBI to seize these boxes explicitly forbade federal agents from searching or seizing the contents of the safe deposit boxes stored at U.S. Private Vaults.

The agent keeps digging anyway, eventually tearing open a heavy-duty envelope that contains an unknown number of what appear to be gold coins.

As the ransacking of Box 8309 continues, the video appears to show at least one of Linda's coins falling to the ground. According to an amended complaint filed last week, the search of the box "was conducted in such a shambolic and disorganized manner that it is no surprise that items were misplaced, lost, or worse."

The agents continue digging through the box, opening sealed envelopes…

…and photographing their contents…

…and uncovering more stashes of valuable coins.

At some points, it's not clear what they are doing because they are out of the frame of the video.

When it was all finished, the FBI's official documentation detailing the contents of Linda's box makes note only of "miscellaneous coins" without any specific amounts or other identification of the coins. In the lawsuit, Linda's attorneys argue that the FBI's search of Box 8309 resulted in up to $75,000 of valuable coins being misplaced—though it is difficult to know for sure due to what Linda's attorneys call "the chaotic and slapdash manner" in which the box was examined.

In separate legal filings, attorneys representing Linda and others caught up in the raid of U.S. Private Vaults argue that the FBI rifled through hundreds of safe deposit boxes so they could "use any information gleaned in the claims process in order to conduct criminal investigations."

Recent developments seem to suggest that's true, as the Department of Justice has filed forfeiture motions against more than 400 of the safe deposit boxes it seized from U.S. Private Vaults. In some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being seized by the government despite no criminal charges being filed against the owners of the boxes. And, again, this is happening after the warrant for the raid at U.S. Private Vaults explicitly exempted the contents of the safe deposit boxes stored there.

In their own court filings, prosecutors allege that only "some" of the company's customers were "honest citizens," but contend that "the majority of the box-holders are criminals who used USPV's anonymity to hide their ill-gotten wealth."

But Box 8309 is not one of the boxes that the feds are now seeking to seize via the extremely circumspect forfeiture process. They're not alleging that the box's owner is suspected of committing a crime or that her gold coins are somehow evidence of ill-gotten wealth.

According to legal filings, attorneys representing Linda R. acknowledge that the government has promised to return her money.

But, they note, "it has refused to say how much it took, how much it will return, or exactly how long that will take. The government's apparent inability to locate and return the coins it seized from Dr. R does not inspire confidence in the smooth return of her money."

NEXT: An Epidemiologist Confirms That the CDC Director Misrepresented Her Study of Outdoor COVID-19 Transmission

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Charge the specific agent with felony theft as well as breaking and entering.

    1. Haha. Very funny.

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are SW much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Qualified immunity almost certainly, do we have a previous case where box 8309 was opened from a private vault company and an 80 year old lost her coins?

      1. QI doesn’t protect cops from criminal charges only civil suits.

        1. You are correct – qualified immunity only protects corrupt LEO’s from civil suit. Corrupt D.A.’s and U.S. Attorney’s protect corrupt LEO’s by failing to prosecute infractions against conservatives and the hoi polloi in general. Of course, honest and honorable FBI agents would never – repeat, never – threaten to “loop in” an accused’s innocent family members, or falsify evidence, or make up multiple 302 Forms so that they can manufacture “levereage”, or seize a citizen’s money or property on “suspicion” (or greed), and then challenge them to “prove their innocence”. Such would never happen, would it.

        2. QI shouldn’t exist.

  2. The only antidote to the tyranny of the federal government is local organization. Feds cannot handle organized resistance, which is why the regime builds systems and pushes propaganda that encourage social atomization. Hyper individualism, corporate consumer culture, and marxism are all mechanisms for achieving the same goal.

    1. Says the guy that only yesterday was supporting the government restrictions on shipping.

      1. That is correct. How is local economic protectionism at all inconsistent with anything I said?

        1. You decry one form of government overreach while accepting another.

          That’s why its inconsistent.

          How do you think that economic protectionism is enforced – through the cops you are here bitching about.

          1. Absolutely false. I decry overreach I do not agree with either because it serves a purpose I do not support or is wielded by people I do not like. Big difference.

            1. For all of dads and moms that love to stay home to take care of their loved ones,
              or rest of people on the search for an opportunity to pull in some extra income for their family
              month after month let me share a remarkable opportunity to explore.
              JOBS APP

            2. Wow – never read such a heart felt longing for tyranny…. mostly cause who’d be stupid enough to admit that, but here we are.

      2. government control =/= marxism. You’ve been looking at too many Turning Point Memes.

        1. Aggie is angry he might have to pay and extra 5% for his cheap Chinese crap as a means to level the playing field in US trade relations with China.

          1. Please, tell my why I should be killed if I trade with someone in a way not approved by the government?

            1. This is the fallacy of burgeoisie liberalism.

              “I can trade and participate in a ‘free market’ without coercion” eventually becomes “I can share property with my fellow citizens without coercion, and therefore we don’t need property rights.” Marxism is not opposed to liberalism, it is the evolution of liberalism.

          2. What about the judge who signed off on the confiscation of the boxes’ support brackets? What purpose could that have been for other than a reason for taking the boxes too?

            Fucking horseshit. We’re fucked. We’re doomed!

        2. No, government control = fascism. There are limits to how much forced collectivization I’ll tolerate.

          1. Fascism is a 20th century concept. Did no government ever control industry before the 20th century?

            I see some benefits in fascism, but it’s less stable than aristocracy or monarchy. Stability requires successful collectivization, which in turn requires hierarchy. The hierarchy itself cannot be subject to the will of lesser types or the morasses of the society. This is our current problem. Right now the current regime is run by the merchant class whose sole goal is to be liked (you know … Our Democracy (TM)). The justification for their rule is entirely external, which is unstable.

            1. FWIW If Bastiat or de Tocqueville were alive today, they would write just like Kendi. Same energy, same spirit.

  3. >>the warrant … explicitly forbade federal agents

    you seem to believe federal agents believe their actions are limited.

    1. There was money that could be taken, so according to longstanding federal policy, they took it.

      1. also the author forgets the “innocent woman” committed at least three felonies per day before they took her stuff.

  4. Question: Why is it so much easier to find out who my local police officers are than who my local FBI agents are? Does anyone find it strange? If the Feds are serving and protecting us, why can’t we know who they are?

    Notice that even reason doesn’t name the agents here…

    1. Thats why we need to reimagine law enforcement(not defund) and bring it all under federal control

      1. BINGO

        1. Yeah, ’cause the president doesn’t have enough power yet, might as well give them that much more.

      2. Not sure why you think it would be easier to get the names of federal agents if all law enforcement was brought under federal control. If that was to happen, than far from suddenly having access to the names of federal agents operating in your community, you would instead most likely lose access to information about local cops/deputies operating in your community.

        1. White Knight was being sarcastic.

          1. Sorry, sarcasm is flying right over my head today.

      3. International control would be ideal!

        1. Why do you think the pentagon is psy-op ing this UFO bullshit? Phase II of building a global red forrest shit hole. Potential unseen other-worldly threats necessitate the need for more international cooperation.

    2. That’s par for the course when it comes to federal agents. Try getting the name of a Border Patrol agent in the Southwest through FOIA or even a lawsuit without responsive docs being filed under seal. I’ve even seen FOIA docs from CBP where CBP has redacted the name of the U.S. Border Patrol’s Chief Patrol Agent! And that’s when you can even get CBP to respond to a FOIA request.

      You can get the names of local cops and deputies because state public records laws are easier to enforce if necessary and local/county law enforcement is ultimately closer to the public than federal agencies. For instance, county sheriff’s are usually elected and police chiefs are appointed by officials who are elected in local political contests.

      1. The point is, why the secrecy? I’m sure a determined citizen could easily stand outside of their local FBI, ATF, Secret Service, or other alphabet agency field office and photograph everyone who comes in and out, but why the need? Similarly, I find it hard to believe that foreign intelligence agencies haven’t done this, so what argument could there possibly be for secrecy.

        1. I can’t speak to other agencies outside the U.S. Border Patrol, or even individual agents, but the Border Patrol likes to propagate a false narrative that not only is Border Patrol work extremely dangerous but the Border Patrol in particular is one of the most dangerous law enforcement jobs in the country with agents routinely targeted by drug cartels, etc. A quick look at Dep’t of Labor statistics however along with various articles written on the topic put this claim to rest:


          Since 2008, I’ve been stopped, seized, detained & interrogated by Border Patrol agents well over 500 times at interior checkpoints with many of those encounters also involving the use of drug sniffing dogs. I’ve recorded each of these encounters & posted many online.

          The BP responded in the early years by claiming that I was putting their agents at risk by posting the videos of myself being seized and interrogated by them online. A local union boss even went so far as to threaten to sue me and my employer if I didn’t stop placing agents at risk by posting information about the checkpoints online while also trying to get me arrested based on false claims that I was violating ARS 13-2401 which makes it a crime to post personally identifiable information about certain gov’t officials online under certain circumstances.

          While the union boss never followed through with his specious threat to sue me and I continued exercising my rights while being seized at this checkpoint, I never knew if the agents actually believed what they were spouting or if it was just a convenient narrative to try & intimidate people into not asking too many questions and not try to hold them accountable.

          All I know is that the Border Patrol seems to think that its agents should be able to stop, seize, detain, interrogate, investigate and search anyone they want inside the country absent any individualized reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing while keeping the names and images of the agents conducting these operations against the traveling public a secret from the public that pays their salaries.

          1. Fascinating. Their justification about being afraid of drug cartels doesn’t hold up for the same reason.

            Drug cartels have billions of dollars. In LA, the narcos kill judges and prosecutors while commanding forces of thousands of soldiers — some of whom are ex Special Forces Operators. You mean to tell me they can’t hire someone to stand outside of a CPB office and photograph everyone coming in an out? Or pay someone to follow them home? Separate point, but it’s interesting how comparatively docile the Narcos get when they cross the U.S. border. Almost as if they have some kind of understanding with DEA and CIA…

          2. Every US law enforcement agency seems to like to claim transparency makes things way more dangerous for them with scant (if any) evidence. The boarder patrol seems particularly out-of-control though. Considering they have been given unconstitutional authority (Martinez-Fuente was a terrible decision), they should be forced to be extra transparent… but who would make them? It would take an act of congress or a really liberty-minded president.

          3. Please keep doing the valuable work you do for freedom. It’s not easy fighting back, and not everyone can do it, but never think that it’s not worth it.

    3. I don’t really think you have ‘local’ agents. They have field offices, sure, but those cover a pretty large area and the agents are moved around a lot.

      But mostly its for the same reason the federal government exempts themselves from carrying cameras – even to the point of forbidding local cops working with them from using them.

      Because FYTW.

    4. Serve and protect? What the fuck have you been smoking? This is an adversarial justice system – we are the enemy. This is what needs to be fixed.

      1. It was only supposed to be adversarial in the court room, but then they started claiming enforcement initiatives were “wars on…” and then made practically everything illegal. Law enforcement loved it, cuz it gave them more money and authority and toys. So ya, law enforcement sees us as the enemy, and then they whine about how we are starting to see them as the enemy. It would be funny if it didn’t ruin so many lives.

    5. As a reply to those who say that identifying federal agents, CBP, police etc. does not expose them or their families to danger, consider this: All of you post behind anonymous handles and don’t advertise your real name and/or address. You all worry about “crazies” who would harass you for posting on a modestly viewed (at best) comment section. These are people who deal with real criminals on a daily basis. Please, when you can reconcile your differences in stance between yourself and what you want from others, return.

      1. Why do you think there’s some sort of parity between private individuals posting online and public agents stopping, seizing detaining, interrogating & searching people absent individualized suspicion along public roads inside the country like CBP agents do on a regular basis? Public officials conducting public duties along a public highway while wearing a public uniform and collecting a public paycheck have no expectation of privacy in their images or their names. If they don’t want to expose their faces and their names via the name tags on their public uniform, perhaps they should find someplace else to stand besides along a public highway inside the country.

        The level of corruption in gov’t agencies is inversely proportional to the level of transparency in those gov’t agencies . Transparency is what keeps governments and their agents in check. Agents who don’t like transparency in the things they do in the name of the people who pay their salary should find a different line of work.

      2. In the case of some posters, I am sure that there is a degree of cowardice that prompts them to post under pseudonyms. It also allows some to make ludicrous comments that they would not want to have to “own”. However some of us post under our real names. In my case, I used a pseudonym for social media/blog posts while I was employed, for the simple expedient of frustrating the workerati who (even then) favored cancel culture, and putting an (admittedly penetrable) layer of camouflage over my comments concerning jury nullification. I felt that was necessary, as if you were known as a potential nullifier, you would never be allowed to sit on a jury where nullification might be appropriate. Now that I can’t be fired, and I have “aged out” of jury eligibility, I have no need to use a pseudonym, and if I irritate people, well – that is often what I intend to do. I have never been shy about publishing the fact that I think some police are honorable and some are crooked, but that there are damn few to no honorable federal actors of any federal agency who attain any “rank”, and may of the “file” have soiled hands also.

        Use of “protective coloration” is not always an indication of cowardice – sometimes it is necessary to retain all of one’s options. I’m curious – do you think the name of the assassin of Ahli Babbit should be withheld or released. Lon Horiuchi earned himself a lifetime of ridicule and the disgust of honorable men after his name was released, but he didn’t lose his job and no one has attempted to gain “pay back” for his malevolent action.

  5. The fed is just the biggest gang

    1. Which is why anyone who’s serious about holding them accountable should start NAMING them. When an agent is no longer “the FBI”, but “Jim” your neighbor who lives at 123 fake street, goes to mass at St. XYZ, has two kids in little league, and shops at the local Publix, it becomes a lot more difficult for them to pull shit like this.

      1. That has literally been made illegal in some sates, though.

        1. states, dammit

        2. There’s no doubt that gov’ts at all levels want to make the posting of certain information online illegal. Attempting to do so through legislation raises serious constitutional issues however because it creates prior restraint on otherwise 1st Amendment protected activity. As such, states that have laws on the books that make it illegal to post certain information about gov’t officials have to word it carefully in order to limit the scope of the statute.

          In AZ, I was threatened with prosecution under ARS 13-2401 for posting images and names of federal agents who had been seizing me at a USBP checkpoint. I immediately commissioned an attorney to research the statute and write a legal opinion regarding what I had been posting and how it would interact with the statute in question. The legal opinion can be accessed at:


          Needless to say, no one actually followed through with prosecuting me for violations of the statute or took any other (legal) adversarial actions against me.

          I presume that analysis of similar statutes in other states would follow a similar analysis.

    2. No. Just the most intimidating. They’re far outnumbered by state, county and local gangs.

      1. and outgunned. A few hicks and a few dozen kids at Waco and Ruby Ridge humiliated them. Only a very small percentage of federal agents are operators — those that belong to SWAT teams. Even they can’t handle legitimate organized resistance as they primarily use police tactics instead of general insurgency tactics (you can’t use police tactics when the enemy won’t let you get within 200 ft of them and you can’t use drones when the enemy is occupying a building filled with civilians). But, you nevertheless hit the nail on the head. The main reason the feds always seek isolate and atomize is to intimidate and project power. They’re terrified of “gangs”, “militias” and the general populace figuring out that the feds are nowhere near as strong or capable as is believed.

        1. Allow me one correction: “. . . and you can’t shouldn’t> use drones when the enemy!! is occupying a building filled with civilians”. Since when were the occupants of the Branch Davidians compound transmogrified into enemies?

          And who needs drones, when you have tanks?

  6. I believe it was customary for the Praetorian Guard to be paid in coin. Nice to know some traditions survive.

  7. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after l0t of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cash44.club/

  8. I’m sure the Merrick Garland DOJ will be seriously investigating. Oh wait that happened at the wrong time of day, so no worries.

  9. If anyone was storing a cheap plastic flute (which was NOT prescribed for them!) in their safe-box there, and they now get busted, it is all on THEIR head! NO sympathy for psychotic, deranged, law-disrespecting anti-Government-Almighty crooks!

    To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

  10. I am sure no cop has ever before been found guilty of robbing a safe deposit box number 8309, so qualified immunity.

    1. That is immediately where I went. Imagine the QI argument.

      Judge: Did my warrant specifically forbid you to open boxes?
      FBI A-Hole: Well it did, but we felt threatened and hold to open all the envelopes.
      Judge: Well, this has never happened before. Qualified Immunity!

  11. In the warrant, what would be the evidentiary purpose of including the seizure of the steel frames that hold the safety deposit boxes if not to create a legal justification for the FBI to also seize the safety deposit boxes under a community caretaker standard? Seizure of the company’s computers, money counters and cameras would make sense for a legitimate investigation but seizure of the steel frames don’t. Why would a judge sign off on a search warrant application that included the steel frames in the first place? What am I missing?

    1. Not that hard to figure out. FBI really wanted the boxes but couldn’t justify it to a judge. So they convinced him they could remove the steel frames as part of a general property confiscation.

      The FBI knew they could then take possession of the boxes for safe keeping and that they would need to take inventory of said boxes. All very legal, right?

      1. They made a chump of the judge. He should “remember” this in the future, but probably won’t.

      2. “FBI really wanted the boxes but couldn’t justify it to a judge. So they convinced him they could remove the steel frames as part of a general property confiscation.”

        From the motion filed by the plaintiff (so don’t take this for gospel), this appears to be the case. According to the motion, the government’s “justification” for seizing the frames was for the monetary value of the frames themselves. In other words, the government was afraid that the company would sell off the frames then waste the money, leaving less available for the government to collect in fines or restitution. In other other words, a transparently garbage justification that a compliant judge nonetheless signed off on.

      3. Thanks for that explanation; I had the same question as Roadblock, but I think you’ve hit upon it.

        This judge should receive some type a sanction for allowing himself to be the LEOs’ tool.

  12. “…may have resulted in the loss of some valuable gold coins.”

    Yep, those coins grew wings and flew away all on their own.

    The only difference between cops and armed robbers is the badge.

    “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” ~ Albert Jay Nock

    1. Another, bigger, difference between cops and armed robbers is that our entire government looks the other way and lets the cops get away with it most of the time.

      1. Too true!

        Of course, the rest of government looks the other way because it would be powerless with out its grasping fingers and stinking toes that are its cops.

  13. A couple of things:

    One – The ‘Gluck Declaration’, linked in the article, seems to indicate that Dr. R has received at least some of the contents of her box back into her possession:

    “After the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter, on May 3, 2021, AUSA Andrew Brown sent me two video files reflecting the “video inventory” of Dr. R.’s safe deposit box, and claimed that the video proved Dr. R. received all of her property.”

    Two – Why did the FBI ask in their warrant application for the ‘nest’ or the large (empty) steel frames that hold the individual safe deposit boxes? Surely that item on its own would not be all of that much use in their investigation.

    My guess is that they asked for it in order to give them a semi-legitimate pretense for rifling through all of the individual boxes. If they had asked for permission to go through the boxes, they probably would have been denied. And even with this warrant they were told not to. But now, since they have a need to identify the individual box owners, all of a sudden it’s in a grey area, so it’s fair game.

  14. The government says the contents were accumulated illegally. so all the owners need to do is prove their innocence. You know, submit to all kinds of investigations and stuff. What’s the big deal if they’ve got nothing to hide?

    I can’t believe I said that with a straight face.

  15. More than two months after the raid, Box 8309 (and its contents) is one of hundreds of safe deposit boxes that remain in FBI custody

    Somewhere in the basement of the local FBI office, Box 8309 still sits under a bare light bulb while 2 agents try to talk in into confessing.

    1. I see it in a huge warehouse on a rack 40 feet high a la Citizen Kane.

      1. It’s right next to the Ark of the Covenant…

  16. They’ll return the stuff after Joe gets his cut.

  17. Where are all the apologists here? Could it be possible that left, right, and non-partisans are all united that this is an oppression and abomination?

    Or is it just “the cost of liberty” or some such bullshit? C’mon Joe-sycophants, do yer best to defend the indefensible!

    We are a despotic, third-world “nation” at best as long as the enforcers are stealing from us and killing us without recourse. This includes garbage like civil asset forfeiture and no-knock warrants.

  18. There are still dumb, poor bastards in the U.S. who think that they don’t live in a police state. I’m running low on sympathy for those people.

  19. How does the owner of the box prove what was in it at the time the Feds opened it?
    In other words, how does she prove they stole anything, which is likely as they have shown they have no regard for the warrant and know the owner can’t provide evidence of theft against them?

    1. If she kept records of what was in the box (e.g., a photo), a judge would likely presume those to be correct. After all, she didn’t know when she created the records that the box would be broken into, so she would have had little incentive to falsify those records.

  20. Did they find any crypto currency? Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t physically exist. Is that why Big Government fears it?

  21. Isn’t this pretty straight forward fruit of the poisoned branch exclusionary shit? I don’t even see the logic here.

  22. OT
    ‘No Basis’ For Obstruction Charges Against Trump In Mueller Report, Newly Released OLC Memo Confirms
    “The long-awaited, though partial, release of a memorandum from the Justice Department this week left many “frustrated,” as predicted by the Washington Post, in Washington. The reason is what it did not contain. Critics had sought the memo as the “smoking gun” to show how former Attorney General Bill Barr scuttled any obstruction charges against Donald Trump.
    Instead, the memo showed the opposite.”

  23. Have no fear, the dishonest FBI agents will be caught in Bidens IRS crackdown on illegal profits!

    What, why is everyone laughing?

  24. The only way this shit will ever stop is if judges grow a pair and jail those that blatantly violate warrants. Fishing expeditions should be an offence whereas those ordering these actions be dismissed from service permanently.

  25. According to legal documents, on behalf of Linda R. (Linda R.)’s lawyer admits that the government has promised to return her money, that’s OK

  26. The business that housed them, U.S. Private Vaults, is suspected of conspiracy to distribute drugs, launder money, and avoid mandatory deposit reporting requirements

    What kind of “reporting requirements” would there be for safe deposit boxes?

  27. Two – Why did the FBI ask in their warrant application for the ‘nest’ or the large (empty) steel frames that hold the individual safe deposit boxes? Surely that item on its own would not be all of that much use in their investigation.

    My guess is that they asked for it in order to give them a semi-legitimate pretense for rifling through all of the individual boxes. If they had asked for permission to go through the boxes, they probably would have been denied. And even with this warrant they were told not to. But now, since they have a need to identify the individual box owners, all of a sudden it’s in a grey area, so it’s fair game.

  28. Growing up during the Cold War, the communists had a “Stasi” (secret police) and their motto was “to know everything” – a foreign concept to America’s Founding Fathers.

    Back then my mostly Republican teachers, parents and Ronald Reagan preached to us kids that Americans were fundamentally different from the “Evil Empire” (communist block nations led by the former Soviet Union). We had checks & balances on executive branch agencies’ authority, a constitutional rule of law and an Independent Judiciary that provided “judicial review” over political agencies and political branches.

    A judicial search warrant, issued by a real Article III court, does not impede or harm any legitimate search by any legitimate constitutional-officer. Each and every FBI Director swears a supreme loyalty oath to follow the 4th Amendment and NOT give unconstitutional orders to their subordinates. The FBI Director should resign immediately for violating his own oath of office.

    A judicial

    1. He also said we were a “shining city on a hill”. More like a burning city on a hill really.

  29. “Hey Frank the lady says there are 20 gold coins missing from that box”

    “She’s lying. I only took 15 of them”

    “Oh. OK see you in the morning”

  30. Trannies Edinburgh is great web place for free chat contacts in UK

  31. Based on the vents of the past 4-6 years the FBI is essentially a rogue agency. Any trust or respect I had for them is gone.

    They get away with this behavior because no one in government is ever truly held to account like a private citizen would be.

  32. I read this entire comment section, and I have to say there are a lot of posters here who will likely, shortly, have some up close and personal attention from some our honest and honorable FBI agents. And no, while we’re at it you can’t have a lawyer. You don’t need one unless you’ve done something wrong. What are you trying to hide? Now, we need you to sign all six of these 302 forms we’ve prepared memorializing what you admitted to told us during this voluntary interview.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.