To: imahawk
Note the real reason for this "prosecution." Follow the money. The poor slob had assets that totaled over 1/2 a million bucks and the State used its confiscatory authority to snatch it. His home and business were easy money to fill the coffers of law enforcement which is constantly being underfunded by the liberal legislatures. A State must have enough money to fund social welfare programs, the infrastructure be damned.
The poor slob in this case was a perfect victim - former criminal record, small amount of marijuana, disposable/accessible assets...
12 posted on
07/29/2007 7:37:38 AM PDT by
Thommas
(The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
To: Thommas
That sucks, if he sues,the taxpayers pay for it.He is justified to sue imo,I just wish the guy could sue the prosecutor(POS)
13 posted on
07/29/2007 1:44:31 PM PDT by
HANG THE EXPENSE
(Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
To: Thommas
Typically, one doesn’t even need to file criminal charges in order to seize assets, and keep them. Asset seizure is a civil matter and requires a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt as is required for a criminal coviction.
19 posted on
07/31/2007 6:30:34 AM PDT by
Scotsman will be Free
(11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson