Posted on 12/21/2007 12:14:30 AM PST by LibWhacker
You asked how you prove a negative - first part would be to avoid illegal behavior, so you don't get into this mess. He's not a law abiding citizen, he's a participant in a criminal activity. The only question here is if the money came from drug income or from real income - pull out the last twenty years of tax returns, should be very easy to prove that money is legitimately earned savings.
But you know as well as I do, when someone breaks one law, they generally break many more. Likely under the table income fueled that pile of cash, and almost any drug user is more than willing to 'get a little for their friends', or show others 'how this really manages pain.' Providing evidence of income would be a good step in the process, a decade worth of tax returns would be nice, but I think you and I both know this guy won't be able to prove the income.
My only real disagreement with the forfeiture process is the lack of appeal by jury. Someone wants to fight having their money, their home or their car taken, they should be able to go before a jury of their peers. If the guy had a couple ounces, and the government can't demonstrate a drug history, a dealing history, and he's got some explanation that 12 people can accept, he should get his money back.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I agree. TRAVESTY!
The FBI can't touch a savings account?
Are you familiar with the credit/subprime/banking/hedge-fund crisis? Compound interest is all very well and good, but sometimes people are more concerned with the return OF their money, not just the return ON their money, and rightly so it appears.
Have considered getting a safe a time or two, but it just seems to scream “rob me at gunpoint”. If I could get one those round, in the ground types embedded in cement, that would be the way to go. But any safe would have to be secret, which is just about impossible.
Where people do have a problem is when the government seizes money from people who have done nothing wrong and they happen to have a large amount of cash on hand in their safe. The burden of proof should be on the government to prove a person's property was the fruit of a crime before they can take it. It should never be the other way around - which would, like in the situation we've discussed be to the detriment of an innocent person.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The government's contention is that the money wasn't lawfully earned.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Cops down home use the law every time they want new patrol cars.
Thats why some cops are patrolling the streets in souped up Mustangs.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It may be a bad strategy, but that’s not the issue, nor an argument. “Mind your business” ?
There's something missing from this story.
1) Were "the robbers" known to Luther Ricks, Sr.?
2) You have to report to the IRS money movements in those kinds of numbers.
3) What quantity of marijuana did police find? Usually, police don't search a victim's house—much less a safe's contents.
He should have kept the marijuana in his safe, and the cash in the freezer, where it would be returned, like Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Sure they can but they have to work just a little bit harder for it. They probably wouldn't have bothered wiping out his savings account because he was caught with a little bit of weed. But give them a safe full of money?
Had Mr. Ricks sent his $402,767 to family in Mexico, all would be OK.
The Law is less bloody. But if it is in the best interest of the State, guns will be used.
That’s illegal behavior.
So if you break the speed limit laws, are you inclined to break other laws as well - as you claim?
As far as having to prove his innocence to get his money back, you have it completely backwards. The government is required by the constitution to prove his guilt before punishing him. You know, that presumption of innocence thing...
This is wrong and there is no excuse for it.
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.