This is the only way I know how to introduce myself. I encourage comments or direct contact.

[David Lyga]

LETTER TO THE FBI (Robert S Mueller III, Dir)
Director: Robert S Mueller, III 11 Aug 2008
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20535-0001

Director Mueller:

There are two compelling questions for which I seek your assistance with answers that are both unambiguous and accurate. Though subjectively very related, these two matters are really quite discrete entities and are probably applicable to wholly different legal statutes. As a person who has no direct legal training and little access to the finer points of law, the need for clarification is, as I initially said, compelling. What troubles me most here is the government’s inculcation of an appearance of ‘purposeful vagueness’ in order to maintain a veneer of public doubt and, yes, even fear, throughout much of the population. Perhaps you would be willing to illuminate this matter and help to remove a justifiable trepidation which, in all too many cases, attenuates a solid and willing sense of law-abidingness. At this point I feel little loyalty (but much fear) toward statutes which ultimately eviscerate both our inherent and Constitutional rights. Perhaps, being in the ‘eye of the storm’ you honestly (albeit naively?) disagree with that truthful assessment. Perhaps, your position, your connection, and yes, your clout, pre-empts, or at least clouds, your ability (or desire?) to see this matter really clearly. Then again, maybe it does not if you have managed to maintain an overriding sense of ethics and genuine, personal integrity which admirably overshadows the importance of even your technical status at the FBI. I will now try to elucidate these points.

FIRST QUESTION: (concerns civil forfeiture): This involves the use of the in rem legal doctrine (from Latin res: thing, affair) which accuses and convicts a non-human tangible item as being criminal, solely by its very presence. When a person is carrying a large amount of currency this doctrine can readily be invoked. The currency can be seized, not merely impounded, but permanently seized, because the very fact of its presence somehow ‘proves’ its criminal nature. Its bearer is not necessarily charged with any crime but the ‘res’ is. Police departments regularly fund their operations with much of this ‘booty’ and their own personal ‘de facto criminality’ for doing so is securely and legally negated. My question to you is this: can a person LEGALLY carry a large sum of currency ($5,000 to, say, $50,000 or more)? Why is a person’s own money subject to being confiscated? You might attempt to answer this indirectly and vaguely by stating that ‘a person has no business carrying a large sum of money’ or, just as obliquely, state that ‘the only purpose for carrying such a large sum of money is to commit a crime’. You might state this for political reasons but you are intelligent enough to know that it is, simply, a false, contrived statement. Might the real reason be the desperate, lush ‘need’ to ‘legitimize’ the easy money police departments get from this definitionally correct act of ‘state-sponsored mugging’ and, thus, ‘create’ a crime - in order to legitimize the seizure of cash? I am not asking you to have the courage to openly admit that evident truth but I am asking you to provide me with a ‘way’, a legal way, to actually be able to carry a large sum of money if I wish to. There ARE graphic reasons why such a need should be legitimatized: two are: auto auctions and large coin shows (which I sometimes attend). (There are many others.) I recently attended the yearly ANA (American Numismatic Association) convention in Baltimore. I did carry a large amount of cash and worried more about police than street muggers. Business is much easier to transact with cash due to the fact that it is hard to get most dealers to accept checks. Better buys are sometimes obtained with cash. But, Mueller, these ‘edifying’ reasons I give for carrying cash are really just moot points. The core question remains: Why is a person’s OWN money subject to confiscation? You can sit in your Directorship and promulgate all you want about legitimizing and optimizing official seizures but you cannot come up with a real, moral reason, one synergistically bound by both logic and integrity, to make room for all the innocents being caught up in this drug dragnet. Your technical position, not necessarily your subjective willingness (which remains to be witnessed), allows you to ‘brush me off’ with expedience; but you cannot readily ‘brush off’ the underlying, corrupt logic which you have sworn to uphold. Intuitively, you surely know this but you, conveniently, are never compelled to admit this fact to anyone. Alternatively, maybe you really do wish to publically acknowledge that my question is inherently valid and timely and will, with an admirable level of rectitude, choose to answer it with reasonable accuracy. There HAS to be a way of LEGALLY carrying money. Why is our government so very secretive about illuminating this matter? (We both know, don’t we?)

SECOND QUESTION: (concerns ‘structured’ transactions): Although I am willing to abide by the legal requirements, morally, even pragmatically, I cannot even grudgingly, intuitively accept the fact that the federal government ‘needs’ to know about cash (or cash equivalent) transactions over $10,000. The reason for my reluctance is the fact that ‘cash’, or legal tender, is only ONE way to purchase something. For example, art work, gold (bullion or numismatics), diamonds, or the intangible, ‘information’, can be employed as transactional ‘currency’ as well. There are no legal reporting requirements for ‘withdrawing’ such assets, even if their market value exceeds $10,000. Thus, transactions, secret transactions, can readily occur without the requirement for legal disclosure and we defeat ourselves when ascertaining that cash always dominates. So why single out cash? Solely because police arrogance wishes to arrogate it and police are more addicted to this easy booty than a heroin addict is addicted to heroin. If this is not the real answer then this ‘logic paradigm’ is a bit like the faulty reasoning concerning our change in paper currency, enacted for the purpose of thwarting counterfeiting. The need for currency modification then becomes structurally unsound because, although the new banknotes are far more difficult to counterfeit, the old notes, the ones with 1920s technology, ARE STILL VALID and, thus, COULD BE COUNTERFEITED AND PASSED AS BEFORE. Where is the net security improvement if the old notes are still legal tender? A counterfeiter would simply not waste time with the new technology. Why cannot anyone in a reasonable position see that that paradigm is untenable? Sir, with due respect, I think that there is a decided lack of critical thinking when these ‘solutions’ are thought out and ultimately enforced. I know that you are not Secret Service but the logic which I just offered has to cause you to think hard (rather than hardly). But, away from the digression: If I must still disclose this ‘withdrawal’ information to the federal government, I WILL disclose this information, even if the logic is sorely tainted. I am not looking for a fruitless confrontation whereby reason is ‘conquered’ by brute force. My question to you is this: If I wish to withdraw over $10,000, but feel more comfortable doing so from several different banks on the same day, or series of days, (either branches or different banks), how can I CONFIRM and PROVE that I did NOT attempt to ‘structure’ the smaller transactions in order to escape disclosure? How can I FORCE the CTR (Currency Transaction Report) TO BE FILED in order to protect myself from an opportunistic ‘suspicious transaction’ accusation? Yes, again, how might I prevent police arrogance from arrogating my assets? I have a feeling that your position does not want that veil uplifted and wishes, instead, to maintain the uncertainty which guarantees that the government will always prevail, moral proclivities aside. Indeed, Mueller, you sit high and protected while I sit low and vulnerable. Your answer will speak volumes. (And we both readily know that ‘no answer’ speaks no fewer words, don’t we?) Ideally, I would be asked to visit either the Philadelphia or Washington DC FBI for clarification. I await your response. Respectfully,

David Lyga 2003 Chestnut Street # 308, Philadelphia, PA 19103-3311 voice: 215.569.4949 david33x@yahoo.com