Ferrari Mailing List: Re: OT - NFC - State Gov Confiscates Bank Accts ?

[LarryT (l02turner]

You wrote:<<if they team up with Sallie Mae, they will have no problem 
finding anyone!  :)>>

Or the IRS!  LOL -
Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D)
www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts
Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil
PORSCHE POSTERS!  youroil.net
Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs
.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jimshadow [at] verizon.net>
To: "Larry Turner" <l02turner [at] comcast.net>
Cc: "The FerrariList" <ferrari [at] ferrarilist.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Ferrari] OT - NFC - State Gov Confiscates Bank Accts ?


If the Gov. Is going to step in, then they should be required to attemp 
contact with the account holder or next of kin.....if they team up with 
Sallie Mae, they will have no problem finding anyone!  :)

Jim
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: "Larry B" <larrybard [at] hotmail.com>

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:30:50
To:JIM <jimshadow [at] verizon.net>
Cc:The FerrariList <ferrari [at] ferrarilist.com>
Subject: Re: [Ferrari] OT - NFC - State Gov Confiscates Bank Accts ?


I believe all -- or at least most -- states have similar escheat laws.
Forgetting for a moment about the sinister view expressed in the article, I
think the concept is that once assets may reasonably be regarded as
abandoned (and we can debate all day how many years that should take with
complete inactivity or other indicia of continued exercise of ownership,
etc., and what sort of search should be conducted for the owner), the
financial institution should not be able to continue to have custody of, and
even use (in the case of cash deposits) those assets, but they should revert
to the state.  What would you prefer as the outcome -- once it's clear
assets are abandoned?   That a bank keep them?

> From: "LarryT" <l02turner [at] comcast.net>
> To: larry <larrybard [at] hotmail.com>
> CC: The FerrariList <ferrari [at] ferrarilist.com>
> Subject: [Ferrari] OT - NFC - State Gov Confiscates Bank Accts ?
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:06:52 -0400
>
> Hi ya'll,
>     Sorry about the off topic stuff - but I respect this lists depth of
> knowledge greatly and was hoping someone could exolain if this is true.  I
> checked Snopes without luck.
>
> Seems too bizarre even for Ca standards.
>
> Anyway, here's the story that appeared on a list I lurk on -
>
> <<<<<In 1958, the California controller was empowered by the state
> legislature to implement a process called "Escheatment". In effect, this
> permitted the controller to steal bank accounts, safe deposit boxes,
> stocks,
> etc that were deemed "inactive" for a period of seven years or longer.
> Yes, you read that correctly. Under the original implementation of the law,
> a account can be deemed "inactive" by the state of California if there has
> been no activity for a period of seven years. In the state's budget crisis'
> of 1991 and 2003, the period of time was ultimately reduced to three years.
> Once a account has been deemed inactive, the state can assume (STEAL)
> possession of the account and the funds are deposited into the general
> fund.
> If the state assumes non-monetary possessions, they simply auction off the
> goods and then deposit the proceeds into the general fund.
> According to Tom McClintock, Escheatment is actually a feudal concept that
> arose from the despotism of the dark ages. It stemmed from the principle
> that the feudal lord owned all within his realm, and when a person died or
> disappeared without heirs, his lands were property of the lord.
> Although you won't find the words "theft", "steal", or "stolen" in the
> vocabulary of the state legislature in regards to Escheatment, make no
> mistake about it; Escheatment is nothing more than legalized theft by the
> Sacramento Mob. This author finds it rather ironic that the letters CHEAT
> exist within the word Escheatment.
> So who might be a target of "Escheatment" you ask? Here are a few examples:
>
> Let's say you have a safe deposit box with some family heirlooms in it. You
> have no reason to check on them from time to time, you assume they are safe
> with the bank. After four or five years, you decide to move your safe
> deposit box to another bank only to find out the state of California STOLE
> the contents of your safe deposit box a year before and, are you ready for
> this? SOLD THEM ON EBAY! Again, you read that correctly. The controllers
> office has a EBAY account in which they sell the items they've stolen.
> Worse
> yet, irreplaceable items such as family photographs have been SHREDDED!
>
> Let's say you setup a savings account for your newborn baby with the
> intention your child will use this money for college someday. If there is
> no
> activity on this account (deposits, withdrawals) for a period of three
> years
> or more, the state can legally steal it.
> All of this, without a notice, letter, phone call, nothing. Victims almost
> always find out months or years after the state has stolen their accounts.
> Benny and Sally Fong invested in Berkshire-Hathaway, a company in which
> Warren Buffet is the largest shareholder. Benny and Sally's investment
> increased to over 1 million dollars in value. When they ultimately decided
> to redeem their shares, they were horrified to discover the state had
> stolen
> this account several years earlier and sold the shares for a mere $105,000.
> Unfortunately for Benny and Sally, there was no account activity other than
> the increase in value of the shares. The state deemed the account inactive,
> swooped in and stole the Fong's investment.
> Fortunately, a federal judge has recently declared this practice
> unconstitutional because the state makes no effort to locate and contact
> citizens BEFORE stealing their accounts. However, the socialists in
> Sacramento are already looking for loopholes in the law so they can resume
> their pillaging of the people of California.
> SB 270 attempts to strip some of the power of this mob-like practice by
> returning the waiting period to seven years and requiring the state to make
> efforts to locate citizens BEFORE stealing their property. Although a
> complete revocation of Escheatment would be in the best interest of the
> people, SB 270 will strip away some of the state's power to steal the
> peoples' possessions. If you live in California, it is time to contact your
> Senator and voice your disapproval of "Escheatment".>>>>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D)
> www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts
> Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil
> PORSCHE POSTERS!  youroil.net
> Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs
> .
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/larrybard%40hotmail.com
>
> Sponsored by BidNip.com eBay Auction Sniper
> http://www.BidNip.com/
> and F1 Headlines
> http://www.F1Headlines.com/


_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/jimshadow%40verizon.net

Sponsored by BidNip.com eBay Auction Sniper
http://www.BidNip.com/
and F1 Headlines
http://www.F1Headlines.com/
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/l02turner%40comcast.net

Sponsored by BidNip.com eBay Auction Sniper
http://www.BidNip.com/
and F1 Headlines
http://www.F1Headlines.com/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.20/919 - Release Date: 7/26/2007 
9:56 AM