Posted on 03/08/2006 10:00:00 AM PST by steel_resolve
Why arrest when they'll never get a conviction based on "beyond areasonable doubt". The standard of proof is lower in a civil case (a "preponderance of the evidence", I believe).
"I can't believe you're supporting this."
Two reasons. One. This is a civil asset forfeiture case. Nobody is being arrested here. Nobody is going to jail. No personal freedoms are being lost.
But something ain't right with this money. You know that. I know that. Let's sort it out in court.
Two. This is a state case involving state civil asset forfeiture laws. If the citizens of Pennsylvania wish to seize property in this manner, that's their choice. You don't like it, move to Ohio.
This is called federalism. Some call it states' rights. Learn to love it. Unless, of course, you feel that maybe the federal government should write all the laws.
See my post #61.
That money was his property, was it not? We do have the right to own property in this country, do we not? The state relieved him of his property . . . for what? Because "something wasn't right about it"?
Shouldn't the state have to prove this guy did something wrong before it goes ahead and takes his property from him?
The state didn't "take" his money. The money was seized because it was suspicious. If he can show some legitimacy, he'll get it back.
Prove the guy did something wrong? Why? He wasn't arrested, the money was arrested.
If they thought he did something wrong and they thought they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he did something wrong, he would have been arrested and charged.
How can an inanimate object like money be suspicious? Was it casing a jewelry store after dark? What in and of itself is suspicious about money? This guy's money was breaking the law, but he wasn't?
C'mon, Robert: you're a reasonable man . . . it must turn your stomach to have to go through such rhetorical gymnastics in order to justify this.
BL Ping for later
"Oh please. This was a little more than that, wouldn't you agree? According to the article, it was seized because of "the amount of money, the way it was bundled, the level of drugs on the bills and the stories the vehicle occupants told."
At what dollar amount is it not suspicious to carry cash?
"Excuse me, citizen, but I clocked you at 47 mph in a 45 zone back there. May I see your driver's license, proof of insurance, registration, smoking license, hamburger license, cell phone license,soft drink license, audio equipment license, proof that your vehicle has not been modified to defeat breathalyzer, seatbelt, airbag, attention deficit disorder requirements? Oh, by the way, give me all your cash, and prepare to forfeit your vehicle."
"The First Congress continued the practice of juryless trials for maritime violations by statutorily subjecting to in rem forfeiture vessels and cargoes that disobeyed customs laws [Reed and Gill, 1987:66]. Contraband, as well as goods imported in violation of the Embargo Acts or by piracy, continued to be automatically guilty and subject to seizure [Weiner, 1981:232]."
http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/forfeiture.html
maritime being the key word here.
Says who?
George Washington and the 1st Congress also seized contraband liquor found in proximity to stills hundreds of miles away from the nearest ocean. If the owner could show that the tax had been paid, he could get the whiskey back.
The problem you face in trying to recover your money.
The costs of doing so could easily exceed your initial $10,000.
W
Hawala.
But when it has to get and pay for things in the USA, it has to get transported at some point to people's hands.
Are you tried to tell me that legal currency is contraband?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.