Are you ready to make your next pro basketball, football, hockey, concert or live event unforgettable? Let Sweet Hop take your game to the next level. Sweet Hop is an online marketplace curating the best premium tickets at stadiums, arenas and amphitheaters nationwide. Sweet Hop's online marketplace makes it easy to browse and book the best seats.

With no hidden fees and a 100% purchase guarantee, you can feel confident when you book your premium LA tickets with Sweet Hop. Visit suitehop.com today. Welcome to Radical Personal Finance, a show dedicated to providing you with the knowledge, skills, insight and encouragement you need to live a rich and meaningful life now, while building a plan for financial freedom in 10 years or less.

My name is Joshua Sheets. Today in the show, we're going to talk about how to keep your money and your valuable jewels, gold, silver, etc. safe from being stolen by the police. That may sound like hyperbole, but it is not. We'll begin with a Yahoo News story. Married couple Jenny Pearsons and Michael Storr aren't wealthy.

Pearsons works at a non-profit theater in Los Angeles and Storr is a transportation coordinator in the film industry. The couple has been saving for retirement for years, buying silver here and there when they could afford it. To keep their property safe, they rented a safe deposit box at US private vaults.

They thought everything was above board until news broke earlier this year about a raid at the Beverly Hills business. The government alleged that the company conspired with customers to sell drugs, launder money and stash ill-gotten goods. Armed with a warrant, FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents spent five days ripping several hundred safety deposit boxes out of the walls and laying claim to its contents.

Prosecutors argued they were within their rights and that the boxes contained weapons and drugs. They also took jewelry, precious metals and stacks of money to an undisclosed warehouse. Their final haul was worth around $86 million. The problem is that federal authorities took the items from people who hadn't been accused of a crime, including Pearsons and Storr.

They've been able to keep it because of the country's vague standards of civil forfeiture law, which allows the government to seize property and assets without any factual, excuse me, without any actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing. During the raid, the authorities also seized Joseph Ruiz's life savings. The unemployed chef, who had a side job selling bongs made from liquor bottles, had stored $57,000 in his safety deposit box.

Prosecutors argued that he couldn't possibly make enough money to have that much saved up and accused him of being an unlicensed marijuana dealer. He went to court to get his money back and won. The government dropped its case against him after he was able to provide documents that showed the source of his money was legitimate.

"It was a complete violation of my privacy," Ruiz told the Los Angeles Times. "They tried to discredit my character." Ruiz is one of 800 people whose money and property were taken in the March 22 raid. Six months later, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles hasn't been able to prove criminal wrongdoing by the majority of boxholders whose belongings the government is actively trying to keep.

Like Ruiz, 65 others have filed court documents claiming the government grab was unconstitutional. An investigation by the Los Angeles Times shows that the government's reasons for taking money and property against numerous others were just as flimsy as it was in Ruiz's case. Agents claim drug-sniffing dogs alerted them to the scent of narcotics on the seized cash, but multiple analyses of drug dog alerts have consistently shown high error rates, some hitting past the 50% mark.

"In effect, some of these canine units are worse than a coin flip," Washington Post columnist Radley Balco said in a post about the accuracy of canine searches. He added that "While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we've bred into them another overriding train, the desire to please.

Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handler's unintentional body language and alert accordingly." Federal auth- Sorry, I'm going to get this out without laughing, I practiced. Federal authorities have also pointed to the use of rubber bands to keep stash- Federal authorities have also pointed to the use of rubber bands to keep stacks of cash together, as well as other normal ways of storing currency, as telltale signs of money laundering and drug trafficking from the U.S.

Private Vault's box holders. The government also said in court documents that it deposited all the seized money in a bank, which experts say would make it impossible to test which drugs may have come in contact with which bills. And even though U.S. Private Vaults was indicted in February on charges of conspiring with unnamed customers to sell drugs and launder money, no one has been charged.

The criminal case against them hasn't moved forward, and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles isn't saying why, the Los Angeles Times reported. Unfortunately for many of the box holders in civil forfeiture cases, a person is often guilty until proven innocent. No criminal conviction is required, and the government only has to show that it's more likely than not that the money or property taken was linked to illegal activity.

Civil forfeiture was initially one way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by taking their assets. However, the practice has been widely abused, with victims forced to give up their homes and property, and then spent small fortunes trying to get them back. Today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously difficult and expensive, with costs sometimes exceeding the value of the property. For Pearsons and Storr, the government's seizure of their silver is unacceptable, and they have decided to fight back. They, along with six others, have teamed up with the Institute for Justice for a class-action lawsuit challenging the government's raid as an illegal search.

"The government's theory is that having cash makes you a presumptive criminal, and I think every American should be worried about that," IJ Senior Attorney Rob Johnson said. And I agree with Attorney Johnson, because indeed, the government's theory in the United States is that having cash makes you a presumptive criminal.

Now this is not a new issue, and in fact this case goes back to March, when the safety deposit boxes were originally seized by the FBI and DEA agents. Civil asset forfeiture goes back quite a long time in the history of the United States. I've read quite a bit about it, because I consider it to be one of the most egregious and obvious complete betrayals of everything that, ostensibly, the United States of America is supposed to stand for.

Innocent until proven guilty, right to privacy, right to have your person's papers and effects protected against a search, etc. And I often use it as an issue when people say, "Well, Joshua, don't you believe in the power of the Constitution?" I always just say, "Listen, look at civil asset forfeiture and tell me that you still believe in some of those things." So you can go back and you can study the history of it.

This is the second time recording this show for me, and the first one I went through extended history of it. But I think it makes for fairly boring reading. What I want to do in this show instead is I want to briefly talk about what civil asset forfeiture is, and I want to focus on how you can protect yourself against it, because this is a serious and legitimate threat against your assets.

It's very, very significant. As I said, civil asset forfeiture is not new. Now, usually where you hear about it is when the police search individuals. I think one of the most famous cases that I first heard about, and it's sensational but absolutely true, was the case relating to a guy named Emiliano Gomez Gonzalez.

Let me read you a short summary of this particular event. "When the government seizes your property under a civil forfeiture law, it doesn't need to prove you did anything wrong. All it needs to do is demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that your property is somehow connected to a crime and therefore is subject to forfeiture.

Currency, cash, is particularly vulnerable to this argument. U.S. courts have repeatedly ruled that possession of a large sum of currency is strong evidence of a connection to trafficking in illegal drugs. Merely possessing currency provides the government with sufficient evidence to seize it unless you can provide clear and credible evidence that it's not connected to illegal drugs.

And even then, you might still lose it, as illustrated by the confiscation of $124,700 from three motorists in Nebraska. During a traffic stop in 2003, Nebraska state troopers obtained permission from Emiliano Gomez Gonzalez, the driver of a rented vehicle, to search the car. During the search, the troopers found bundles of currency totaling $124,700.

Later, a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the presence of narcotics residue on the money. Based on this "proof" of narcotics-related activity, police seized the currency, despite the fact that numerous scientific studies have demonstrated that as much as 96% of circulating U.S. currency is contaminated with narcotics residues. Gonzalez contested the forfeiture and, at trial, testified that after pooling his own, legitimately earned currency with that of two partners in the produce business, he flew to Chicago to purchase a refrigerated truck.

Testimony from his partners backed Gonzalez's account of the legitimate source and intended use of the seized currency, which the government never contested. The trial court ordered the currency returned to him, but on appeal, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this decision and awarded the money to the government.

Prosecutors neither convicted nor accused any of the owners of the seized currency of any crime, nor did police find any drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records connected to the seized currency. The Patriot Act escalated the war on cash to a new level by creating a new crime, "bulk cash smuggling." This provision applies to punish those who fail to abide by the Bank Secrecy Act, and of course remember always that the Bank Secrecy Act is the Bank Non-Secrecy Act, enacted in 1970, extensively amended since then.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires all financial professionals, all bankers, all financial professionals, to report on any "suspicious activity" on behalf of their customers directly to the federal government. The Patriot Act escalated the war on cash to a new level by creating a new crime, "bulk cash smuggling." This provision applies to punish those who fail to abide by the Bank Secrecy Act's requirement to inform the Treasury Department when they transport more than $10,000 in currency or currency equivalents across a U.S.

border. Violators are subject to confiscation of their funds plus a five-year prison sentence. That case by Gonzales is a very famous case. It's famous just even for the name. I think it's a state of, or probably, if I forget it now, a state of Nebraska against $124,700. They sue the money in the actual legal reports.

But to me that's the perfect example, right? Here you have a guy, Gonzales, who has money in his car. And in this case, he is abused by the Nebraska State Troopers. He abused his lack of knowledge and lack of confidence to assert his rights to reject a search of his vehicle.

They find the money and they steal the money. And this is what you see in police departments all across the country. Now certainly there are differences in cost, meaning in terms of application. Some departments make widespread use of their authority and their, I hate to say rights because I despise the use of that term here, but their legal power to steal money and steal stuff from people.

That's why, of course, you see the police driving around in the drug dealers' boats, allegedly. Drug dealers' cars, etc. The city of Miami will have some Lamborghini that they stole from a guy and they'll put a city of Miami police on the side of it and take it around to dare.

Do they still do that? They used to do that with all the drug program cars and all of that. And so they take the money. And I think that the major focus I wanted to focus on was this recent case from Los Angeles, which is even more egregious. Because here, these people had rented safety deposit boxes.

Now, in case you're trying to figure out the details, the reason I read the Yahoo story is because it was actually a little bit clearer than the extensive Los Angeles Times story. Los Angeles Times has, thankfully, done an okay job of at least publishing a couple of articles about this.

But what's hard to figure out is, wait a second, what happened? Because the FBI agents and the DEA agents did have a warrant. And in case it wasn't clear, let me re-explain the situation. The FBI and DEA agents alleged before the judge, in order to get the warrant, that the owners of the safety deposit business were conspiring with some of their customers to provide an easy place for those customers to stash drugs and money that were associated with the illegal drug trade and all of its other aspects.

And so the judge gave a search warrant to the FBI and to the DEA to go and to search and to seize the property of the store. Well, what the agents did was they spent five days ripping 800 safety deposit boxes apart and confiscating more than $86 million worth of cash and jewelry and other valuables without any allegations against those specific box holders.

So by way of analogy, let's say that the federal government goes to, you have a safety deposit at your local Bank of America branch, and you go to the Bank of America branch, and one day the feds show up to the Bank of America branch and say, "Listen, Bank of America, you guys have done something illegal.

We're going to seize your property." And they go and they seize your safety deposit box at your local Bank of America branch. Now you say, "What's the difference between this safety deposit box company and the Bank of America branch?" Well, this safety deposit box company was renting boxes. That is their business.

They're renting boxes. And this distinction is important. Why is it important? Well, because of the Bank Non-Secrecy Act that I read to you that was passed in the 1970s and also the Patriot Act, which substantially enhanced all of the know-your-customer requirements that all financial institutions work under. And so today, if you want to go and you want to open a bank account, you are subjected to extensive verification of your legal identity.

And the same applies with renting a safety deposit box from a bank because that's a relationship with the bank. And so if you want to go and rent a safety deposit box from the bank, you have to go through all of the same know-your-customer identity verification steps that you would to open a bank account.

But what if you just want to rent a storage box? Well, there are a small number of companies around the country that offer that service. There's nothing illegal about a company offering you to rent you a safe, secure storage box for you to secure your valuables. And those companies, as long as they are not banks, as long as they are not financial institutions and thus do not fall under the current law, the current purview of the Patriot Act and the Bank Secrecy Act, they can do those.

They can rent it to you with whatever identity verification that they choose or that you choose between the two of you. So they can choose to do full and total identity verification. They can choose to require of you all of your legal documentation. They can also choose to not do that kind of verification.

They can allow you to rent a safety deposit box under an alias or just simply under some kind of numbered access. And different companies will have different variations of these policies that will allow you to choose. Now, certainly you assume more risk with some of those companies. Let's say that you rent a safety deposit box from a company and you register your ownership of that box just as customer number 12345.

That's a legal arrangement that you can establish, but you now have to place more trust into the institution that is renting you that box because if you haven't proven your identity and if they choose to confiscate the box, they choose to invade the box, etc., how do you prove your actual personal ownership of it?

And so here a lot of trust is required. Well, allegedly, according to the feds, they argue that some criminals were exploiting this by investing into the business that was renting the safety deposit boxes and then actually renting those boxes because then the criminals had a safety deposit box where they could store their ill-gotten loot and not be subject to the identity verification.

Now, that's the point of it. But what the feds did is they went in and they busted down 800 different boxes off the wall. Now, this case is still going forward and there are some significant, hopefully the court system will right the wrong, I hope. You know, there are been back in July, there was a headlines, right?

FBI breached the rights of Beverly Hills safe deposit box holders. Judge rules. Federal authorities have suffered two new court setbacks in their attempt to confiscate tens of millions of dollars seized from Beverly Hills safe deposit boxes that the government was legally barred from searching. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner in rulings issued Friday rejected prosecutors rationale for keeping the cash that two people stored in the boxes they rented at the U.S.

private vault store on West Olympic Boulevard. The FBI is trying to confiscate about $86 million in cash and millions more in jewelry and other valuables that agents found in about 369 boxes based on allegations that the box holders engaged unspecified criminal wrongdoing. Warrants authorizing the March raid of the store prohibited the government from searching whatever was inside roughly 800 boxes that contained valuables because the FBI did not show, by the way, listen to that.

Warrants authorizing the March raid of the store prohibited the government from searching whatever was inside roughly 800 boxes that contained valuables because the FBI did not show it had probable cause to believe that evidence of crimes would be found in each one. In the case of one box holder who sued the government under a pseudonym to recover more than $914,000 in cash, Klausner rejected prosecutors request to dismiss the case, saying the government had "made no showing that there is anything illicit" about the person's money.

The point here is that the agents acted in direct contradiction of their own search warrant, which is not in any way surprising. If you spend any time on YouTube watching videos of law enforcement officers and federal agents doing their job, they constantly abuse people and they constantly overstep their authority.

And thankfully we have a way to fight back increasingly with the omnipresence of cameras and taking them to court and suing them. But in this case, we'll see what happens. We'll see what happens. In my observation, in the United States, you have huge degrees of abuse that happen in society that are frequently righted in the grindingly slow, frustratingly slow process in the courts.

That frequently it seems to me that the courts will eventually get things sort of right, but it's a very frustrating interlude and that's where we are with civil asset forfeiture. That civil asset forfeiture is, as of today, certainly legally lawful in most places in the United States. But there is progress, right?

We do see judges potentially responding to these scenarios and fixing these particular wrongs here with this particular seizure. There are jurisdictions in the United States that are starting to ban civil asset forfeiture. I didn't look it up for the show, but I believe it was the state of Maine that, I don't know, maybe a year or two ago, banned the use of civil asset forfeiture in that state.

So I hope that we'll make progress on this particular issue. But now I want to talk to you about how do you protect yourself? How do you actually protect yourself and your stuff? And there are multiple levels to this and there are multiple forms of protection that come in along the way.

The first form of protection is when you have things like physical currency or valuables such as expensive watches, valuables such as gold, silver, bullion, things like that, jewels, etc. Anything that is a physical item that is valuable, your first and most important precaution is to never ever allow that item to come in contact with a government agent who doesn't have a warrant.

Don't ever allow any physical item to come in contact with a government agent who doesn't have a warrant and is actively searching for it. This is why for me it's such an important personal issue for me to teach people how to exercise their rights. The fourth amendment of the US Constitution guarantees you a right to privacy in your person's papers and effects.

It guarantees you a right to privacy from meddling, sniffing, poking around government agents. But you have to actively exercise that right. So you should and must always actively exercise that right. You need to be aware of the fact that every government agent has the legal authority to steal your valuable items from you if you cannot prove their legal purchase, their legal acquisition.

And they just need the suspicion of this. Now this will sound to some members of my audience, this will sound excessive. I am speaking clearly. I am not making outlandish claims here. I am speaking clearly. This is what happens. Let's say you're in your car and you have just this last week, right?

I rented a house. And I was doing the deal last minute. And so I had the number that's important is usually about $5,000. I had in excess of $5,000 of cash on me because I was in the process of renting a house, paying a first, last and security deposit on a house rental.

So I had in excess of $5,000 of physical cash on my person and in my effects. At that moment, if I were stopped by a police officer, "Hey sir, do you know I pulled you over tonight?" "No officer, tell me officer, why did you pull me over?" "Well, your taillight is out.

Do you mind if I search the vehicle?" "Sure officer, I have nothing to hide." "Hey sir, what's this cash here in your briefcase?" "Oh, well, I'm going to be renting a house here." "This is kind of a lot for a house rental. You have in excess of $5,000 here." "You know what, I'm going to call the drug dog." And the case could go down just like it did with Gonzalez.

And then all of a sudden now the police have my money. Well, think about what that does. This happens all the time. It's not uncommon. Think about what happens in that scenario. Police have stolen my money. I can get it back after I can prove to them it's legal acquisition.

But in the meantime, I have to sue them for it. I have to go through a process and I have to prove where every dollar came from. Otherwise, they'll eventually keep my money. And so in that simple scenario, you are vulnerable. And so this is why it's very important that you become educated about how to exercise your rights when you're ever in contact with a government agent and that you systematically educate others so that they can protect their rights.

Because civil asset forfeiture is uncommon because people are increasingly learned how to protect their rights. So what are your specific rights when you contact a police officer? Well, the first thing is if you're out on the street, right? If you carry around money in your wallet, things like that.

If you're out on the street, you don't ever have to interact with a police officer unless you're being detained. A police officer says, "Hey, you!" You can turn and say, "You talking to me?" He says, "Yeah, hey, you, what's your name?" Now, here's a brief overview on legal cases.

In some cases, in some states, you are required to state your name for the police officer. But in no state that I'm aware of, no state, are you required to do anything more than state your name. And then you can simply ask, "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" If the officer says you're being detained for some reason, then you run down a different scenario.

But if you're not being detained by an officer, then you should leave. Don't ever talk to police officers. Don't ever give them any information. Don't ever answer their questions. Just turn around and leave whenever you contact a police officer on the street. If you are being detained, then don't say anything and don't consent to any searches.

Why would you be detained? Well, you never know. A police officer has all legal authority to do his job without your consenting to any--to help him in his job at all. So, for example, let's say that a police officer just got a call that, "Hey, you know, a guy in a red sweatshirt was just seen coming out of a broken window in the storefront of a jewelry store around the corner." And, unfortunately, you happen to be walking down the street a block away wearing a red sweatshirt.

The police officer is going to detain you because you fit the description of a suspect in a suspected crime, and you're not going to be free to go. Well, in that situation, do not speak. Do not answer any questions. Remain silent. If you are placed under arrest, ask for an attorney.

Remain silent. Say, "I am exercising my right to remain silent." Do not answer any questions. Don't answer any questions about where you've come from. Don't answer any questions about where you're going. Don't answer any questions about why you're walking down the street. Do not answer any questions whatsoever. Don't think, "Oh, well, I'll be reasonable to answer questions, right?

Well, I'm just out for my evening walk." "Well, where are you walking from?" "I'm walking from Elm Street, just around the block." Well, again, you don't know what may have happened on Elm Street. And so, while I'm giving you the abbreviated version here of a lesson in how to actively practice and exercise your rights, this is what you need to know, is you cannot -- there is no safe ground in ever talking to a police officer.

Always remember this, that the law in the United States of America is this. A police officer can, by law, lie to you repeatedly, and anything that you say in response to those lies will be approved to be entered into court. A police officer lies -- every police officer lies on a daily basis, every single one, every single day.

They are legally allowed to lie to you, and they have no duty to resort to the truth whatsoever. Meanwhile, if you lie to a police officer, even by mistake, that in and of itself is a crime. So, always remember that the only way that you win in an encounter with American law enforcement is by not speaking.

Do not speak. Do not answer. Your only acceptable answers are, "Officer, I'm remaining silent. I'm exercising my right to remain silent." By the way, if you're going to remain silent, you have to actually say, "I'm going to remain silent," and then be silent. You can't just be silent. You have to say, "I choose to remain silent.

I'm remaining silent," and then be silent. And, "Lawyer." Those are your answers. "Lawyer, I'm remaining silent." I don't answer questions. Silence. "Lawyer. Lawyer. Lawyer." That protects you against that. And then, "I don't consent to searches." Do not consent ever to searches of your body. Don't consent to searches of anything.

Now, in your car, what do you do in your car? This is probably more likely, right, because most of us don't have, unless you're in a city or you live some kind of urban lifestyle where you do encounter foot patrol officers. I never do. But then, the more likely thing is in a traffic stop.

Simple thing you need to know is don't answer questions from the police. Present your license, your registration, your proof of insurance. By the way, license, what do you do in a traffic stop? I'll give you, I should slow down and just give you kind of Joshua's little mini class.

This is what I teach to teenagers whenever I have the opportunity. The first thing that you must always do is you must always prepare your car so that you give no cause to the police to stop you. So, regularly, you need to check your lights. Make sure that you don't have a burnt-out tail light.

Make sure that you don't have a burnt-out license plate light. Regularly check your car. Make sure that your tires are properly inflated. Make sure that your tires are not worn, they're not balding. Make sure that your car just looks like a normal vehicle. Don't give the police any reason to be suspicious of you.

Don't have your tinting too dark. In Florida, we have tint laws where if you have your tinting too dark, then the police can pull you over and ticket you for that. So, just make sure that your vehicle follows all of the appropriate regulations. In addition, drive properly. Drive safely.

Don't speed. Don't break laws. Stop fully at a stop sign. And if you do that, you cut your risk of encounters with a law enforcement officer by a massive degree. Massively. If your car simply works, you're not breaking any laws, either in how your car is functioning, doesn't have loud exhaust, does not booming a radio, etc.

And you're just driving normally, safely, and legally. You almost never encounter a police officer. And that's your first and simplest defense. Now, if you do get pulled over, what is the procedure? What do I recommend? What do I teach people to do? First answer is, there's some debate about this, but the first thing I always do is I pull over in a safe location.

What is a safe location? Well, if you're pulled over on the highway, you want to pull over on the highway and try to get as far off the highway as you can. Because you want to reduce the stress that a police officer feels in a traffic stop. So if I'm pulled over on the interstate, I won't just pull over to the apron or to the shoulder of the highway.

I'll pull over onto the grass so the officer can be on whichever side of my car he wants to be and be well away from the flow of traffic so that he's not too nervous. If you're in the city, the ideal place to pull over is onto private property.

Better than pulling over onto the side of the road, what you want to do is you want to pull over onto private property. The reason for that is if there's some kind of warrant out for your arrest, etc., you want to deny the police officer the right to search your car.

And so if you're asked to get out of the car, we'll get to that in a moment, it's better for you if your car is parked on private property so that you can call a friend to come and get your car for you. Rather than having your car towed away by the police because it's parked on the side of a public road where they have to tow it away and that gives them time to impound your car, to do a search of your vehicle for inventory search, etc.

And so pull over into a safe location away from traffic so the police officer can be relaxed. What I do is I leave the car on, put the car in park, I turn on the interior lights, at night especially, so that the police officer can see into the vehicle.

Now if you had some kind of contraband in your vehicle, that would probably not be a good scenario. I don't have contraband and I want the police officer to be at total rest. And so I want to turn on the interior lights so the police officer can see into my car and can see that there's nobody hiding in the backseat holding a gun, there's nothing weird in the car.

I want him to be able to see into my car, but I want to keep the windows up on all except my driver's window so that the police officer cannot invade the privacy of my car. There have been times in the past where I used to roll them down, but I've decided that's too much of a risk and so it's better to have them up.

And as long as they're not heavily tinted, etc., that way the police officer can see into the vehicle. Then I just simply place my hands on the top of the steering wheel and hold the steering wheel tightly, or if it makes me more comfortable, put one arm visible outside of the door and I'll put the other arm on the dash.

All of this stuff helps to just reduce the stress level with the police officer. Second thing is you need to always have your documents prepared in advance. Now don't go rummaging around in the car while the guy's walking up to you, but prepare in advance. And the best place for your documents to be is in a place such as on top of your visor, of your sun visor, or some place where you know where they are.

One of the classic techniques that police officers use to try to look around in your car is when you're rummaging around for your documents. Probably the best on this. Go on YouTube and go back and find Barry Cooper's old video called "Never Get Busted." And in the back of that video, he, and by the way, Barry Cooper was a narcotics police officer, one of the most successful narcotics police officers working in Texas, seized millions and millions of dollars of drugs.

And money, doing civil asset forfeiture, just like this, for a long time, until finally he realized that he was on the wrong side of all the arguments. And he quit being a police officer and he started teaching people. He started doing cop busts, cop busters back in the day.

And he also started teaching people how to protect themselves, how to protect their marijuana from the police, etc. Eventually, he tried running for office. Was targeted by the police for a bunch of things, eventually fled the country and no longer lives in the United States. But his information was really good.

So years ago, and I think it was early 2000s, early to mid 2000s, he published a video called "Never Get Busted," which you can find for free on YouTube. And in that, he goes through the dash cam footage of many of his traffic stops and explains what he was doing.

And one of his classic things that he would do to arrest people for marijuana possession would be to walk up to the car, he would stick his head inside the car, of course, so he could smell inside the car. And he would tell them to get their registration and proof of insurance out of the glove box.

And he would make sure that he's got his head leaned in so he can see into the glove box. That way, he can inspect and see what's in the glove box. Oh, is there a marijuana roach in there? Is there a gun in there? Is there some kind of evidence of contraband?

And that allows him, that gives him what he needs as far as a probable cause to wind up searching the vehicle with or without your permission. And so you want to make sure you have your papers ready to go all the time. So the best thing is above your visor, you know exactly where they are, you put them down, you hand over your driver's license, your proof of insurance, your registration, and that's it.

Don't ever answer any question that a police officer asks you. Now, here it's a little bit weird, right, because we're used to interacting with people and used to being polite and whatnot. But you can never win. You cannot win the questions. And so the only thing legally you're required to produce is your license, registration, and your proof of insurance.

So have your license, your registration, proof of insurance ready to go. Give them to the police officer. If the police officer starts asking questions, the line that I teach to my wife, to my children, to all of my friends is simply this. "Sir, listen, I'm sorry. I know you're just doing your job, and it's a difficult one, but I've always been taught to not answer questions by the police." I tell my children, "My dad has always taught me not to answer questions from the police." I tell my friend, "My mom has always taught me.

My attorney has always taught me." Just say, "I've always been taught not to answer questions from the police. I don't answer questions. And just don't answer questions. A police officer will do whatever he or she needs to do or write you whatever ticket you get or don't get. And you sign the ticket, ask, "Am I free to go?" and then pull away and leave.

Do not consent to searches. This is the key. Do you mind if I search your car? Do not consent to searches. And what's fascinating is, again, the best would probably be the Barry Cooper one. There's actually a law, and there's a law, was it a few months ago that I think it was in Minnesota?

Something like that. I forget the exact state. I don't pay attention to these details. What the police will generally do is when they pull you over for a traffic ticket, they will cite you for a traffic ticket. They'll give you your ticket. And at that point in time, you are free to leave.

Now, when they ask for your consent, for them to search your vehicle or for them to search your home, then what they will do is they need to make sure that you're free to go. So they will do this after you sign the ticket. And so there was a case that went to, I think it was the Minnesota Supreme Court, one of those northern states recently, where a guy had been pulled over and he had been given a ticket.

He had signed the ticket, and at that point in time, he was free to go. But then after he was free to go, the police officer said, "Hey, do you mind if I search your vehicle?" And at that point in time, when they searched, then they found drugs in his trunk.

And he won the case, if I'm getting the details right, he won the case because he still thought he was not free to go. But the point is that after you sign the ticket, you're free to go. So do not consent to searches. If ever a police officer says, "Hey, do you mind if I look in your vehicle?" "Hey, do you mind if I look in your trunk?" What's amazing about the Barry Cooper tapes that are so good is you'll see him actually telling people what he's doing.

He will tell the person, he's given them the citation, and literally here he is on camera, and he says to the guy, "Hey, you know, I'm part of the drug interdiction task force. We're out here on the highway stopping people, searching for drugs, large amounts of cash, etc. Do you mind if we search your vehicle?" Or I think he would say, "Do you have any drugs or large amounts of cash in your vehicle?" "Do you mind if I take a quick look?" And he literally says this to the guy, the guy then consents to a search of his trunk, opens the trunk and finds tens of thousands of dollars there, and then of course goes on to arrest the guy and then to confiscate the cash.

Don't ever consent to searches. The police have the legal right to search under certain conditions. If they can articulate, have the reason of articulable suspicion, if they have probable cause, they don't need your permission to search. Do not consent to searches. If you are ever asked to step out of a vehicle by the police officer, then turn off the vehicle, step out, close the doors, and lock them.

Why? Why do you do this? Well, this is because if, in most cases, not always, right, sometimes the police officer asks you to step out because it puts you in a safer situation, but a police officer is always allowed to search the local area subject to arrest. So if you're being arrested in your vehicle, the vehicle is open, the police officer can always search the vehicle incident to the arrest.

But if you're outside of the vehicle and the vehicle is locked, closed, etc., you're establishing your expectation of privacy that you have for your person and effects, and if you're arrested out of it, then the police officer has more limited rights to actually go and search the vehicle. And if you have rent money sitting in your vehicle, then there's less of a chance that the police officer can legally abscond with your rent money in that scenario.

Finally, what about your home? Same thing applies in your home, right? I encourage all people to have significant amounts of currency available to them. Now, significant varies, but you never know when you need money, right? If I, in this situation, I needed money for rent, to pay rent, and I've been traveling and so I didn't have a lot of cash, and so I needed to come up with cash, and I couldn't get a bank check in time because it was a last-minute deal done over the weekend.

And so I found myself in that funny position of trying to get money out of my bank accounts when it's over a weekend. So how do you do it? Well, it used to be that I had all my accounts set up where I could go and I could have them all set up with maximized limits where you could just go and have a maximum withdrawal limit of $5,000 in a day.

Well, what has happened is my bank has changed their policy, and I have to request that limit instead of having a standing authorization on my account. So I requested the limit, and then I've gone. Well, it used to be a couple years ago, if I needed a bunch of money, I could go to one bank and I could make multiple transactions, right?

Some of the highest transaction limits would be Wells Fargo and Bank of America, which you can usually get $1,000 out of the ATM at a time. And so I could go to Wells Fargo or Bank of America, and I can usually pull $3,000 or $4,000 out of the ATM in one day.

Well, this past weekend, first I had to make a special request to my bank to raise my ATM limits to $5,000, which they did for me. But then I have now found out that none of the banks that I could find would let me do more than two transactions.

So if you're just trying to get even just a measly $5,000 out of the bank through ATMs and not going and doing a teller withdrawal, you're stuck going to seven, eight different banks. It's crazy. So you want to make sure that as long as you have a safe place in your home, a literal safe or a safe place in your home where you can store money, where it's not going to be stolen easily, it's not going to be damaged in case of a flood or a fire, etc., you want to make sure that you always have the ability to lay your hands on at least a few thousand bucks in case the ATMs are down or in case something's going wrong.

For some people, that number is 10 grand. For some people, the number is 100. For some people, the number is 1,000. But you should always be able to lay your hand on some money so that you can buy a bass boat once for sale, pay a mechanic to put a new transmission in your car so you can travel, pay down payment on a rent and actually rent a place, etc.

So you'll have money in your house. Well, what happens if a police officer comes into your house and there's evidence of the money or they wind up searching in some way? So what do you do? You need to have a protocol with regard to your house. Any law enforcement agent who comes to your house is a danger to your stuff.

It's a danger to your physical cash, danger to your gold, danger to your watches, danger to your stuff. So you need to have a protocol. Don't ever allow a police officer into your house. Police come and knock on the door. You go to the door. You look out. You see it's a police officer.

What's your protocol? Walk out the door, close it behind you, talk to them on the step. Unless the police officer has a warrant, your only answer to the police officer is, "I'm sorry, officer. I don't answer questions. I need to go. Excuse me, please." Police officer has a warrant, you deal with the warrant.

They can serve a search warrant on your house or on your person, on your phone, whatever it is. Deal with warrants. But they can get warrants if they have reason to talk to you. Otherwise, don't ever answer questions. Again, why? Sounds extreme, right? It sounds rude. You don't have any idea why the police officer is asking you questions.

We all want to be helpful. All of us want to see criminals go to jail. All of us want to see innocent victims protected. We all want to be helpful. But you have no idea why the officer is asking questions. You have no idea what has been said. If you are going to talk to a police officer, it will happen in the presence of your attorney at a time of your choosing.

After your attorney has said to you, "Yes, either you can and should go ahead and provide the information that the police officer is asking for, or you're legally compelled to provide information." They can legally compel you to speak to them through a subpoena process, and that's the process that they should work.

Don't answer questions. Don't invite the officer to come in and sit down in your house. Similar things, right? If you're going to be arrested, don't ever be arrested in your house. Why? Because now you give the police officer the right to search subject to arrest, right? Search the local area subject to arrest.

So if you're arrested in your living room, well now the officer has the right to poke around your living room while he's arresting you. If you're arrested outside of your house, it's far better for you. Outside of your house with a locked door is the way to be arrested.

It's to walk into the police station on Tuesday morning with your attorney beside you. That's the way to be arrested, right? Do it like you see the guys on TV. Do it. Don't get arrested in your house. If there's an arrest warrant out for you, contact your attorney and get it dealt with.

Don't be stupid, but most of my audience is not getting arrested in their home. Point is, protect your rights and establish a protocol. Don't ever allow the police to come in contact with your stuff. At the minimum, at the minimum, you will spend months and months fighting to try to get your money back, right?

Joseph Ruiz in this particular story eventually got his $57,000 back. But he had to fight it for months and he had to produce all the records which shows him, shows that he has it. Which leads me to thing number two. And I hope that that was useful for you.

It's a very important issue to me. I think that if you're looking for something simple, a simple part of useful activism that you can engage in, teach people to systematically exercise their rights. Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, exceedingly important. Teach your friends. Teach all young people. Teach all immigrants.

Teach all poor people. Right? These are the people that get abused day in, day out by the police. And they do, they get abused because they're ignorant of their rights. And what you can do is help people to not be ignorant of their rights. Teach people to exercise their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights each and every time.

It's very simple. I don't consent to searches. I don't answer questions from the police. I want a lawyer. That's basically what you need. I don't, I'm being silent and I want a lawyer. That's it. And if you'll teach people to do that, you'll, you'll, you'll, we can make substantial progress in this country on protecting people from wrongful police work.

And that will encourage the police to do their job properly to actually target criminals and to properly prosecute those criminals rather than what we have in the world today. I've reflected a lot on the United States, specifically as a country. I've recently come back to the United States and I think a lot about that.

And what's interesting is as soon as I came back in the United States, I immediately have put up all of my defenses on this stuff. Being outside the United States for the last three years, you'll notice that I have not done, talked about civil rights. I've not done any of that.

I've just been so relaxed outside of the United States. Immediately I come back to the United States and I know I'm in the country that has a higher proportion of its population in prison than any other country in the world bar none by a massive majority, by a massive percentage.

That's a big, big risk. You have a higher risk of being incarcerated in the United States than in any other country in the world. Now immediately people say, "Oh, but only if you're doing something illegal." Nonsense. Certainly you have a much higher risk of being incarcerated if you are doing something illegal.

No question about that. But you have a higher risk of being incarcerated in the United States than any other country in the world. And so if you care about freedom, your own personal freedom, the freedom of your family members, the freedom of your loved ones, if you care about freedom, then teach people these simple techniques.

Develop your protocol. Practice it. If you have teenage drivers in the house, practice again and again and again a traffic stop. Drill them with the answers. Drill them. Make them memorize the scripts and repeat them back to you. Because the first time you do it under duress, if you haven't drilled it, you will feel so strange.

I learned this stuff for a number of years. I taught my wife. And then we had an encounter with a police officer. And I felt so strange. Actually, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was right. I'd done my research. I knew that I was saying the right things.

But I felt so strange refusing to talk to the police officer. What was amazing about it is refusing to talk, the whole problem went away. Police officer didn't ask any more questions. The whole situation resolved itself quickly. The details aren't important. But I felt so strange. I was so nervous.

Now, I have very little reason to be nervous. Similar thing happened to my wife. I drilled the scripts into her, drilled them into her, drilled them into her. And still, the first time she had to use them, she felt so nervous. So, you've got to practice this stuff and exercise it.

And teach the people among us who are the most vulnerable. Teach young people, poor people. Teach immigrants so that they can practice and exercise their rights. If rights mean anything, these are the rights that need to be practiced. Okay. Back to the next step of protecting yourself. That was a long overview of don't let the police come in contact with your stuff.

If you let the police come in contact with your cash, there's a very high chance that they will steal your cash. I want to remind you that what was the sign of suspicion? I read you from the Yahoo News story. But let me read it how it was in one of the Los Angeles Times story.

This one was dateline September 19th. This was the most recent story from Los Angeles Times. Quoting from the middle of the story. Quoting, "In civil forfeitures, no criminal conviction is required. The government just needs to prove that it's more likely than not that the money or property it seeks to confiscate was linked to criminal activity.

The lax standard of evidence was apparent in the forfeiture complaint filed Monday against two brothers from Woodland Hills. The government wants to keep the $960,100 in cash it took from one of their safe deposit boxes and the $519,000 it took from the other. Prosecutors say that theft, fraud, and money laundering justify the forfeiture.

But the complaint's only evidence was that one of the brothers, it did not say which one, had allegedly "been in contact with" suspected armed robbers of cellular phone stores. I repeat, prosecutors say that theft, fraud, and money laundering justify the forfeiture. But the complaint's only evidence was that one of the brothers, it did not say which one, had allegedly "been in contact with" suspected armed robbers of cellular phone stores.

Suspected armed robbers of cellular phone stores and that he had allegedly been in contact with. Well, I guarantee you in my life I've allegedly been in contact with suspected armed robbers of cellular phone stores. I have no idea more than that. When have I been in contact with it?

I don't know, 15 years ago, 10 years ago? Maybe the guy that I checked out at the grocery store was an armed robber of a cellular phone store? It's an absurd complaint. Absurd. And yet that's what it is. Had allegedly "been in contact with" suspected armed robbers of cellular phone stores.

Their lawyer, Benjamin Gluck, called the complaint "an appalling and unconstitutional abuse of power." Prosecutors also produced scant evidence in another forfeiture case to confiscate more than $900,000 from a box holder whose identity they have been unable to learn. They accused him of being "either a top-level drug trafficker or money launderer." The "indicia" of those crimes included the way the person bundled his cash in thick, thin, and broken rubber bands.

You can't make this up. You cannot make this up. The "indicia" of those crimes included the way the person bundled his cash in thick, thin, and broken rubber bands, tightly tape-wrapped paper, bank bands, and plastic CVS and paper Good Neighbor pharmacy bags. This is the "indicia" of a crime.

The way that you bundle your cash in thick, thin, and broken rubber bands, tightly tape-wrapped paper, bank bands, and plastic CVS and paper Good Neighbor pharmacy bags. Using the pseudonym Charles Coe, the box holder has filed suit challenging the seizure of his money. Gluck, who represents Coe, declined to discuss the specific case but said U.S.

private vaults customers "included many immigrant business owners who escaped repressive regimes where banks are unsafe and have collected amounts of cash as their life savings over many, many years." "The notion that the old rubber bands mean they must be drug dealers is ludicrous," he said. It's absolutely ludicrous. "The government's only other evidence against Coe is a drug dog's alert on his cash." By the way, listen to this, okay?

"The declining value of dog alerts as more states legalize marijuana is well known in law enforcement. Police across the nation have become retiring drug dogs that alert for marijuana and training new ones to find only cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin." Blah blah blah, lots of money is in contact with marijuana.

But, where is it? Just a moment. He says... Anyway, what happened is, so the prosecutors say, "Hey, it's suspicious the way that you've wrapped your money because it's suspicious that you've wrapped your money in rubber bands and plastic bags, etc." And then later what they do, and then they say, "Drug dogs are alerted." Okay, but what did they do with all the cash?

They took all the cash and they deposited it in a bank. And so, now all of the money is co-mingled. So they say, "Look, a drug dog alerted to this cash," but all the cash is gone. And so, now there's no possible way that they can do an actual laboratory analysis on this particular $900,000 worth of cash.

Rather, "Oh, it's all in a bank and it's all co-mingled and it's gone, back into the system," where they'll use it to get someone else who has marijuana-tainted money in their pocket. That's the level of... That's what we're dealing with. That's what we're dealing with with these bozos. Right?

So, back to how do you protect yourself. Okay? Don't ever let government agents be in contact with your stuff. But the second step is, you need to be able to prove where your stuff came from. And here's where, unfortunately, this is one of those areas where it's totally out of whack.

You would assume innocent until proven guilty. You would assume that it's innocent until proven guilty. But that's only in criminal cases in the United States where it's innocent until proven guilty. Rather, here, all the government needs to do is say, "Look, it's more likely than not that this money is from illegal sources." And the fact that it's got rubber bands here is probably not.

Now, here, it's important that you note, the feds here are not the IRS. The IRS is a totally different scenario. It's perfectly fine for the IRS to go after someone and audit someone if they suspect that someone is engaging in tax evasion. That's a separate scenario. Here, we're talking about the federal agents stealing your money because you have it wrapped in rubber bands.

Or you have more than they think you should have. They don't think you should have $500,000 in a safety deposit box. They don't think you should have $900,000 in a safety deposit box. They think that you should put all your money into a bank where, oh, by the way, they have already compelled every single banker to spy for them.

And they're in the process of submitting legislation trying to get a banker to produce a report on a monthly basis of all of the inflows and outflows of your cash and whatever other requirements that the treasury secretary may also deem prudent in the future. Remember the show we did a few days ago, right?

So, God forbid, you would actually want to have a little bit of control over it. So, you would use their U.S. dollar tokens that they're eroding the value of every single day because they print more. You would use those U.S. dollar tokens that have all kinds of burdensome laws stating that somehow you're a suspect if you pay someone more than $10,000 and they have to file a spying report for the U.S.

government. But now you go ahead and use their U.S. tokens and you put their U.S. tokens into a safety deposit box and now you're a suspect because of the way that you wrap your money in rubber bands. Forgive me if I sound a little bit angry, but I am.

It's ridiculous and it's absurd. And it's an absolute farce that anybody anywhere in this country would say, "Oh, land of the free." It's nonsense. You need to keep the records, is the point. How did Joseph Ruiz get his $57,000 back? Remember, unemployed chef. This was his life savings. How did he get $57,100 back?

He was able to prove to the feds that he had received the money as part of an insurance settlement and also as part of a claim with the local government over some kind of ordinances. Then he was able to get his money back. And so what you need to have is you need to have proof of where you got the money.

So save the paperwork and save the records. Because when the police steal your money, if you can prove where you got it and you can prove that it came from legal sources, you can get the money back. And there is very good results while expensive and difficult and completely immoral that you should ever have to go to court for this kind of reason when you're not been accused of a crime, etc.

And again, remember, the police have every right to accuse you of a crime, to arrest you for that. In that scenario, they can freeze your bank accounts. They have every right to do that. This is not that. The reason they don't do it is they can't prove that. If they accuse you of a crime, they have to go and they have to get a warrant.

Warrant for the rest. What's your probable cause for the warrant? Judge has to approve it. There's a system of checks and balances. They arrest you. You go to court. You have the ability to defend yourself. In that scenario, law enforcement agents have every legal authority that they need for them to control basically all of your stuff.

And while perhaps it shouldn't go that far, I'm not here today arguing against that. You need to have money to pay your attorney. You are innocent until they prove you guilty. And I will defend your innocence and I pray that all of my fellow citizens will defend your innocence until or unless you're proven guilty.

And then when you're proven guilty, then you'll suffer the consequences of whatever you're proven to be guilty from. And then you're a free man. By the way, another thing that really bugs me about this story. I'm back to the Los Angeles Times story from September 19th. Here's an important couple of paragraphs.

Okay. Talks about Joseph Ruiz. Tells his story. I'll just read it to you. "After the FBI seized Joseph Ruiz's life savings during a raid on a safe deposit box business in Beverly Hills, the unemployed chef went to court to retrieve his $57,000. A judge ordered the government to tell Ruiz why it was trying to confiscate the money.

'It came from drug trafficking,' an FBI agent responded in court papers. Ruiz's income was too low for him to have that much money, and his side business selling bongs made from liquor bottles suggested he was an unlicensed pot dealer,' the agent wrote. Notice, by the way, that now the crime is not being a pot dealer.

The crime is being an unlicensed pot dealer. 'And his side business selling bongs made from liquor bottles suggested he was an unlicensed pot dealer,' the agent wrote. The FBI also said a dog had smelled unspecified drugs on Ruiz's cash. A dog had smelled unspecified drugs on Ruiz's cash. The FBI was wrong.

When Ruiz produced records showing the source of his money was legitimate, the government dropped its false accusation and returned his money. Ruiz is one of roughly 800 people whose money and valuables the FBI seized from safe deposit boxes they rented at the U.S. private vault store in a strip mall on Olympic Boulevard.

Federal agents had suspected for years that criminals were stashing loot there, and they assert that's exactly what they found. The government is trying to confiscate $86 million in cash and a stockpile of jewelry, rare coins, and precious metals taken from about half of the boxes. But six months after the raid, the FBI and U.S.

Attorney's Office in Los Angeles have produced no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the vast majority of boxholders whose belongings the government is trying to keep. About 300 of the boxholders are contesting the attempted confiscation. Ruiz and 65 others have filed court claims saying the dragnet forfeiture operation is unconstitutional.

"It was a complete violation of my privacy," Ruiz said. "They tried to discredit my character." This was the paragraph I wanted. Prosecutors so far have outlined past criminal convictions or pending charges against 11 boxholders to justify the forfeitures. But in several other cases, court records show the government's rationale for claiming that the money and property it seized was tied to crime is no stronger than it was against Ruiz.

Federal agents say the use of rubber bands and other ordinary methods of storing cash were indications of drug trafficking or money laundering. They also cite dogs alerting to the scent of narcotics on most of the cash as key evidence. But the government says it deposited all of the money it seized in a bank, making it impossible to test which drugs may have come into contact with which bills and how long ago.

So the point here is that they are saying that a past criminal conviction or a pending charge is enough to justify the forfeiture. This is immoral. It is immoral to treat people who have been convicted of a crime in the past and who have served their punishment as anything different than every other citizen.

If the penalty for crime is just, I'm opposed to the prison system, but if the prison system is the right response, then when somebody gets out of prison and they've served their time and they've satisfied the bonds of their parole, etc., that individual is entitled to every single right that he or she had before the crime.

That individual should be allowed to vote. That individual should be allowed to own a gun. And that individual should be entirely free from having his or her money stolen by the government goons with guns and having the evidence be, oh, they had a past criminal conviction. That's immoral. Now, pending charges is slightly different, right?

Because there is a legal process there where if somebody has charges against them, they can deal with, but just pending charges, I don't know the cases of those. But it is immoral to treat people who have satisfied the penalties for their crimes as anything other than individuals just like you and me with every single right and responsibility that you and I have.

How do you protect yourself? Number one, don't let the police come in contact with your stuff. Number two, have the proof of where your stuff came from. Because eventually, it may cost you a lot of money, but if the police come in contact with your stuff, eventually you can get it back.

Those are the single two most important things you can do. Number three is don't keep all your stuff in one place. Never keep all your stuff in one place. Don't keep all your money in one bank. Certainly don't keep all your money in one bank account. Don't keep all your money in one bank.

Don't keep all your cash in one place. Don't keep all your investments at one company. Diversify your risk. We often have this idea that in the modern age, we're living in a better time, right? More law and order. And a lot of us feel very invulnerable when it comes to our things, right?

Most people that I talk to, we don't worry too much about theft. We say, "Well, I got a credit card, right? I'll just get my money back." We don't worry too much about this. Do not keep all your stuff in one place. People want your money. The feds want to steal the $86 million in cash plus jewels and watches, etc.

from your safety deposit box to pad their budget. Your local police department wants to steal your money to pad their budget. The politicians want to steal your money to pay the interest on their debt. And so this happens in all different ways. It happens through civil asset forfeiture. It happens through increased taxation.

It happens through all kinds of stuff. Don't keep all your stuff in one place. Don't ever expose yourself to wipe out risk. If you got $1,000 of savings, your $1,000 of savings should be distributed in at least a couple of safe places. If you got a million dollars of savings, your million dollars should be distributed in a couple of safe places.

This is, incidentally, where we get into multiple jurisdictions, right? You should not have all your stuff in one safety deposit box. You should have your stuff in multiple safety deposit boxes. If you got stuff that's valuable enough to store in a safety deposit box, then you should make sure that it's worth—if you got stuff that's valuable enough to store in multiple safety deposit boxes, then that stuff is valuable enough to store in two safety deposit boxes.

If you got stuff that's valuable enough to put in your home safe, then at least some of your stuff can go into your trusted buddy's safe. Don't play around with this, right? Keep the stuff in different places so that you run less of a risk of being wiped out.

It's just not acceptable. If you got enough money to have money in a bank account, you have enough money to have it in two bank accounts. As the intensity goes up, you have to build new strategies. Remember I mentioned my woes of trying to get money out of the bank?

Well, what do I do? I need to have more bank accounts with more ATM cards so that I can go and satisfy all their limits and swipe more cards. So, I'll open more checking accounts because I can accomplish my purpose that way, right? I can keep $10,000 in a savings account and then I can move that into three other accounts with an application on my phone.

Boom, boom, boom, boom. It happens immediately in one bank. And I can have three debit cards for three different checking accounts and that way I can make three withdrawals. It used to be easier, right? It used to be easier, but it's not easier now. So, we've got to keep on working on it.

And we've got to build new strategies. So, move your stuff around. Move your stuff into multiple jurisdictions, right? Probably in the next show, we'll talk about the recent Pandora Papers. That'll be fun. Offshore planning. But there's no reason for you to have all your money in the United States.

There's no reason. You can't make an argument to me that you should have all of your money in the United States. You should have at least a few thousand dollars outside of it. The US government is a bunch of greedy kleptomaniacs, right? They're untrustworthy. They're entirely untrustworthy. You should not trust them.

You may still use them for where they're appropriate, but don't trust them for an instant, right? Somebody steals some stuff from my house, I'm going to call the police and I'm going to file a police report. But I will not leave a police officer alone in my house for an instant.

I will not give them access to anything. I'll trust anybody, right? But my children are taught, you don't go alone anywhere. You don't go with anybody alone anywhere. And so you cannot trust when you have this kind of overwhelming evidence. You cannot rationally trust this kind of scenario. You cannot do it.

You need to beware. So I've probably talked too much on it, but the reality is it's very simple. Number one, don't ever let government agents come in contact with your stuff. Number two, have the receipts for where your stuff came from. And number three, don't keep all your stuff in one place.

That's it. It's very simple. This other is just all bonus as far as what else is about it. If you follow these rules, I don't think you need to worry on a daily basis about civil asset forfeiture. If you can make some kind of stink and contact your legislators or whatever, this has got to be removed from law.

This is so immoral. It has got to be removed. And we're making progress. Again, I think it was Maine that banned it. But at the moment, it's still the law of the land and other places. I hope that this judge will follow through. The judge ought to be angry, right?

Because he gave a warrant to serve against the property of the safe deposit box company. And the warrant was taken by, and they took all the people's stuff. So I hope that the judges solve this. I think they will. I hope they will. But for now, you need to protect yourself.

Rule number one, don't let cops or government agents of any kind around your stuff. Rule number two, keep records and receipts showing where your stuff came from. Rule number three, spread your stuff around. And then if this depresses you, go watch a little George Carlin skit on stuff. Thank you so much for listening to today's show.

I remind you, I guess I'm doing consulting again. If you'd like to talk to me personally and book a private consultation, go to radicalpersonalfinance.com/consult. Here to serve you personally in that radicalpersonalfinance.com/consult. Thank you so much. Do more together this holiday in the new Chevy. Take on more adventure in the strong and capable Chevy Silverado.

More confidence in the Chevy Equinox. Winner of the J.D. Power Award for initial quality among compact SUVs, two years running. And more value in the all new Chevy Trax with an available 11-inch diagonal touchscreen. Bring the holidays together in the new Chevy. Click to learn more. Chevrolet. Together, let's drive.

For J.D. Power 2023 U.S. Initial Quality Study Award information, visit jdpower.com/awards.