To: Political Junkie Too
Shouldn't the FBI have to prove that he didn't? Nope. Property does not have civil rights or a presumption of innocence. This is the basis of all forfeiture laws and has been upheld by the USSC.
Is it right? Personally, I think it is a travesty.
This guy will never see one thin dime of this money again. He should have opened up a savings account.
16 posted on
12/21/2007 12:51:59 AM PST by
Drew68
To: Drew68
A government that is no better than a thief deserves no respect and obedience from me.
"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
17 posted on
12/21/2007 12:53:28 AM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: Drew68
23 posted on
12/21/2007 1:17:06 AM PST by
endthematrix
(He was shouting 'Allah!' but I didn't hear that. It just sounded like a lot of crap to me.)
To: Drew68
He should have opened up a savings account. The FBI can't touch a savings account?
24 posted on
12/21/2007 1:17:11 AM PST by
GLDNGUN
To: Drew68
Actually the SCOTUS had found that the seizure must have some connection to reality, a small amount of pot leading to the confiscation of 400,000 dollars is excessive punishment INOW.
57 posted on
12/21/2007 3:15:58 AM PST by
padre35
(Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson