speculatorsRIDE

Mike think about this for a minute. The lowest denomination in circulation now is the 50. If they RV to 1 : 1 then the lower denoms will have to be released either before or simultaneously with the RV. Iraqi's aren't going to pay $50 for a coke until they release the lower denoms. The lower denoms have to be out in order to see a significant RV.

It is a matter of supply and demand. Nothing more. Currency dealers are in business to make money. They buy and sell the currency through the Federal Reserve trying to maximize their profits. There are no contracts to sell for the CBI or the reserve for a percentage of the profits. Currency dealers are dealing with their own funds. Period. Look at it realistically folks. The mom and pop store on the corner owns everything in their inventory. The manufacture of the widget you want to buy didn't send it to them to sell and is waiting on the sale to be paid. It doesn't work that way. Do currency dealers have rules and regulations governing their sales practices and tax obligations? Of course they do. But, they are dealing with their own money and they own their inventory.

Wondering, wandering even, why you assume that currency traders would have to return the IQD they have back to the CBI? Currency traders purchase the IQD from the Federal Reserve as did the banks when they were selling. The Federal Reserve doesn't just give them the IQD to sell. The currency traders purchase it and then resell it to investors for a profit. Any IQD the currency traders have in their possession at the time of a revaluation would revalue as well. The currency traders would in fact profit from a revaluation. If the currency were to devalue then they would lose money just like we would. When the currency revalues and becomes an internationally traded currency then we will cash out either through the banks or the traders and they will in turn cash out through the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve will then either return it to the CBI for dollars or add it to our foreign currency reserves to back the value of the dollar.

He romantically pursued Nell Fenwick, the daughter of Inspector Fenwick, the head of the Mountie station.

I mistakenly said against the law and I was referring to the under 10k rule. This applies when you make a bank deposit or you purchase anything over ten thousand dollars in cash. The bank or the place of purchase are then required to report that to the IRS. No, it is not illegal to have that amount of money on you, but unless you can prove that you acquired that money from a legitimate means you can lose that money to the government. There are many documented cases. It is called asset forfeiture. It normally occurs during a routine traffic stop. If police discover a large amount of cash (with or without the presence of drugs) they can and often do seize the cash. This becomes a problem for you because while under our constitution a person accused of a crime is never required to prove that they are not guilty , it is always the burden of the state to prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt, this is not true in asset forfeiture cases. If the police seize your money, the district attorney then gives you a notice of seizure. If you fail to respond to that within ten days you can and often do lose the money. If you respond timely then another series of legal petitions and answers are required and most people fail to file the appropriate paperwork to get the money back timely. Only a lawyer well versed in asset forfeiture law can really help you. It is a catch 22 because in order to get the money back you have to first admit you are the owner, this often implicates people in a crime if they cannot show that it was derived from legal means. The burden becomes yours (which appears unconstitutional) to request a hearing and to then show that the money is yours from legal sources. The police often seize money even cars even without the presence of drugs under this theory. If drugs are present and money is not the police argue that the drugs have not been exchanged for money yet. If the large amount of money is present but drugs are not the police then argue that the money is the product of an illegal transaction (the prior sale of drugs). Unless you can show through bank statements, casino winnings, or pay stubs that the money you are carrying is yours from a legal source I highly recommend you not carry large amounts of cash on your person or in your car, and do not keep large amounts of cash in your home. Then there is this: Violating $10,000 Cash Limit Not a Crime, Justices Rule : Law: Supreme Court says government needed to prove a gambler knew he was breaking the statute. He paid a casino debt with a series of $9,000 checks. January 12, 1994|DAVID G. SAVAGE | TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON — In a setback for the government's effort to police money laundering, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a person cannot be convicted of a crime just for deliberately skirting a requirement to report cash transactions of $10,000 or more. Instead, a prosecutor must prove that the person knew he was violating the law by breaking up the transactions into lesser amounts to avoid having them reported to the government. The 5-4 decision throws out the conviction of a Portland, Ore., restaurant owner and part-time gambler who paid off a $160,000 casino debt in Reno with a number of cashier's checks, all of which were for amounts slightly less than $10,000. Based on this action alone, gambler Waldemar Ratzlaf was convicted of evading the federal reporting requirements, sentenced to 15 months in prison and fined $26,300. But the justices concluded that he was not proven guilty of "willfully violating" the law, as Congress specified. Certainly Ratzlaf knew a $10,000 transaction would trigger the reporting requirement, but he did not know that drawing a series of $9,000 checks from different banks to avoid the requirement was itself a criminal act, the court said. "We do not dishonor the venerable principle that ignorance of the law generally is no defense to a criminal charge," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the majority. "In particular contexts, however, Congress may decree otherwise," she added. As a general matter, some crimes are so obvious--stealing, for example--that violators cannot contend they were unaware their actions were illegal. But in the growing number of complex regulatory laws that make otherwise legal behavior a crime, both Congress and the high court have set a higher threshold for judging guilt. Two years ago, for example, the court gave tax protesters a surprising victory by ruling that they cannot be convicted of criminal tax evasion unless prosecutors prove that they knowingly and willfully violated the law. In 1970, Congress first required financial institutions to report large cash transactions to the Treasury Department. The law includes transactions that are the equivalent of cash, such as those made with cashier's checks. Legislators wanted to track the flow of cash from the drug trade as well as stop ordinary tax cheating by making it harder to hide the money. The law was stiffened in the Money Control Laundering Act of 1986 to also make evading the reporting requirement illegal. As Ginsburg noted, however, the law says that it punishes only those who "willfully violate" its provisions. That requirement "mandates something more" than evidence that a person restructured his transactions, she said. "The government must prove the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful," she concluded in the case (Ratzlaf vs. United States, 92-1196). Tuesday's decision comes as a mild surprise. Ten of 11 circuit courts that had considered this issue had sided with the government, including the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which affirmed Ratzlaf's conviction. The judges said that if a person deliberately evaded the reporting requirement, that was enough to justify a guilty verdict. The ruling also marks the second time in a row that the justices on a 5-4 vote have reversed a decision in a criminal case. Last month, on the day before adjourning for its holiday recess, the justices overturned the seizure of a drug dealer's home and property because he had not been given a hearing in advance. Ginsburg's opinion in the money laundering case was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter. Speaking for the dissenters, Justice Harry A. Blackmun said that Ratzlaf "will be laughing all the way to the bank." Undoubtedly, the ruling will make it somewhat harder for officials to track and punish tax cheats and drug criminals, as well as those who deal with them. In this case, lawyers for Ratzlaf said that he generated a large amount of cash from his Portland restaurant. Government prosecutors labeled him a "high stakes gambler" and said that they suspected he had evaded paying income taxes on his winnings.

Well, this is a sticky wicket. If in fact they are missing 44 trillion IQD, equal to 40 billion, and if these funds are missing from the DFI Fund, and since the US held the DFI Funds here in the US, doesn't this imply that we owe them 40 billion dollars? That's what I get from this anyway. The way our government spends money like a drunken sailor (just an expression and no offense to sailors intended), it is easy to believe that 40 billion (a drop in the bucket for US lawmakers) could have been siphoned out of the DFI accounts. We probably needed a new toilet seat for the space shuttle that has since been parked. This smoking gun gives new meaning to Bush's statement about the war paying for itself.

Since Article 140 was supposed to be completed in 2007. Article 140: First: The executive authority shall undertake the necessary steps to complete the implementation of the requirements of all subparagraphs of Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law. Second: The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of the Iraqi Transitional Government stipulated in Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it accomplishes completely (normalization and census and concludes with a referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December 2007. The Constitution will not take effect until the government is seated and so we continue to wait for the ministers. Article 144: This Constitution shall come into force after the approval of the people thereon in a general referendum, its publication in the Official Gazette, and the seating of the government that is formed pursuant to this Constitution.

Ok perhaps contacts is a bit of an overstatement. A new friend of mine has the contacts. I am amazed at the people she has contact with. The other day I listened in on a conference call when no one knew I was there. It was certainly some interesting conversation between some well connected individuals who seemed to know an awful lot about the dinar situation. Let's just be happy they are expecting the RV at anytime. From what I could gather the rate will be north of $.10 significantly. However, no rate was given. If these folks were all acting and their discussion was conjecture instead of facts, then these folks need to be awarded for their performance. It was actually kind of cool being the fly on the wall for the 33 minutes. Granted a good part of the time was spent getting everyone on the call. Very interesting conversation none the less.

I never heard a date given of Dec 31st. The spiritual change they refer to is the fear of money being removed from the equation. Tell me that you as an individual wouldn't be better off if suddenly all your debt was erased? I would be ecstatic if I didn't owe what I do now.

exactly.

Agreed. 'purplehelmet' was a polite way to call someone a '**** head' when in mixed company as we are here, hence the ****'s in this post.

My contacts are saying the exact same thing. China was the stumbling block but have finally relented. This thing can happen at any time in the next two weeks. As always time will tell. It will happen when it happens is my motto.

DinarBot the beach is a great place to bury your head in the sand. You wouldn't be a banker in real life would you?

Took care of the negative for you. After all this time, it amazes me that folks don't understand when to use their + and -. In the US you will not walk out of the bank carrying more then 10 grand. $10,000 is the limit for the amount of cash you are allowed to carry on you. Don't believe me? Look it up. It is the law. Carry more then that and get stopped by the police and they will confiscate it for you. Neg be gone!

Absolutely. I continue to invest in IQD. Having said that, let me state that that is what I do and not meant to encourage you to invest more. My circumstances may or may not be different then yours. I have invested more then I care to lose already. But, I don't care to lose any money at all. So those that give that advise have different circumstances then I. Advise is always subjective. Difficult for anyone to give another advice without knowing their circumstances. My best advice to you is if you decide to invest more, make sure you locate a bank that is still selling dinar and purchase through them. The spread you will pay will be much less then that of the dealers. IMO anyone who is still purchasing IQD through a dinar dealer is being foolish. We all know what happens to a fool and their money right?

btw the names Jim.

Great tread Pamela. For those of you who have pluses left, please think about reversing all the negs thhat dominowinner received in her early posts in this tread. I read the entire thread and those who negged Pamela should be ashamed of yourselves. God Speed Pamela. I am a survivor as well. 12 years now. Still going strong. I just went back a +1 each one of your 12 posts in this thread Pamela. That should take care of the knuckleheads that negged you.

Job well done Bump. Long over do on Matt330. I had him pegged in the first week. With this latest bump, does this mean we now call you Bumper65?

If you haven't noticed, the negs usually come when the comments stray from the original post topic. There is a crazy thread (which I never use) for all those off topic personal comments. Debating Christ's birthday and porn sites on a post about article 140 completion is bound to bring negs. A little common sense when posting will usually keep you out of trouble.

Well, this paints a pretty bleak picture for the RV, doesn't it?

yessir. nail - head.

Why do you assume that only one currency is RVing?

What did the note from customs say? If all bills were still in there, then what was the problem?

Do you really think there will be an in country RV? Will the out of country RV be at a different rate? Will both RV's be on the same date? Will both rates show up on FOREX? on the CBI website? yes, that's what I thought. This is nothing more then the latest guru BS.

Where did you bury the ex? I'm with you. Please bring back the back to the top button on the posts. I am wearing out my scroll wheel and my fingers. I am conducting a test. Please push the + button on this post. I want to see what color it is.