Comments on: Another Asset Forfeiture Outrage http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/ It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do. Fri, 16 May 2008 05:07:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: The Agitator » Blog Archive » ABC News on the Luther Ricks Case http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-87079 The Agitator » Blog Archive » ABC News on the Luther Ricks Case Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:22:40 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-87079 [...] pro bono legal help to the Ricks. If I may boast a bit, both also first learned of the case through the site you’re reading. Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  [...] [...] pro bono legal help to the Ricks. If I may boast a bit, both also first learned of the case through the site you’re reading. Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  [...]

]]> By: The Agitator » Blog Archive » Update on the Ricks Forfeiture Case http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-81470 The Agitator » Blog Archive » Update on the Ricks Forfeiture Case Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:35:34 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-81470 [...] After reading about the Ricks case on my personal site and at reason, a friend of mine persuaded his law firm to represent the Ricks pro-bono.) Digg [...] [...] After reading about the Ricks case on my personal site and at reason, a friend of mine persuaded his law firm to represent the Ricks pro-bono.) Digg [...]

]]> By: can you smell it? http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-72135 can you smell it? Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:33:18 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-72135 [...] finally, an Ohio man had his life savings confiscated under drug forfeiture laws after he defended his home against two burglars. The saints showed up [...] [...] finally, an Ohio man had his life savings confiscated under drug forfeiture laws after he defended his home against two burglars. The saints showed up [...]

]]> By: Patrick Henry http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-68737 Patrick Henry Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:51:33 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-68737 "First, it diminishes respect for law enforcement, because it makes them look like common thieves." No, it makes them into common thieves. The legal basis for it is a bunch of hokum. “First, it diminishes respect for law enforcement, because it makes them look like common thieves.”

No, it makes them into common thieves. The legal basis for it is a bunch of hokum.

]]> By: The Pale Scot http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67364 The Pale Scot Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:51:22 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67364 "We know somebody in the house was engaged in criminal enterprise." When did defending yourself with a firearm become a "criminal enterprise". “We know somebody in the house was engaged in criminal enterprise.” When did defending yourself with a firearm become a “criminal enterprise”.

]]> By: Jerry Alexander http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67222 Jerry Alexander Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:47:03 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67222 SO What!! If he expects Americans to do anything about it,he`s S.O.L. It`s is very obvious that these Goons can do anything they want to America,any-time,any-place and the Americans will say;"As long as they don`t bother me,I don`t care what they do". Sorry my man,your are on your own. Look at what they have let their Prez and their Congress do to them. Americans a putty in the hands of their own elected leaders. Unless!!! They elect Ron Paul. SO What!! If he expects Americans to do anything about it,he`s S.O.L.
It`s is very obvious that these Goons can do anything they want to America,any-time,any-place and the Americans will say;”As long as they don`t bother me,I don`t care what they do”.
Sorry my man,your are on your own.
Look at what they have let their Prez and their Congress do to them.
Americans a putty in the hands of their own elected leaders.
Unless!!! They elect Ron Paul.

]]> By: Crystal http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67163 Crystal Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:40:27 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67163 So if he can shoot the burglar who didn't get anything and not be charged, why can't he shoot the real criminals who raped his estate? So if he can shoot the burglar who didn’t get anything and not be charged, why can’t he shoot the real criminals who raped his estate?

]]> By: Frank http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67159 Frank Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:06:05 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67159 Until recently, they didn't even need to find drugs. My lunch money was stolen by DC police back in 1986 merely for walking from the Navy Yard to a subway station, entering a so-called "Enhanced Drug Enforcement Zone" created to divert attention from the crack-smoking mayor Marion Barry. They just emptied my wallet and threatened to put me in the hospital prison ward when I demanded a receipt. Filing a complaint against the cops only got me arrested. Police Officer = Thief Police Officer = Gang Member The only difference being that the police officer has 'the law', whatever that means, on his side and you can be executed for killing a police officer (but only life in prison for killing a gang banger). Until recently, they didn’t even need to find drugs. My lunch money was stolen by DC police back in 1986 merely for walking from the Navy Yard to a subway station, entering a so-called “Enhanced Drug Enforcement Zone” created to divert attention from the crack-smoking mayor Marion Barry. They just emptied my wallet and threatened to put me in the hospital prison ward when I demanded a receipt.

Filing a complaint against the cops only got me arrested.

Police Officer = Thief

Police Officer = Gang Member

The only difference being that the police officer has ‘the law’, whatever that means, on his side and you can be executed for killing a police officer (but only life in prison for killing a gang banger).

]]> By: Allen http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67135 Allen Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:15:18 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67135 The problem with the laws is that it gives them incentive to find anything that qualifies to add to their funding. The problem with the laws is that it gives them incentive to find anything that qualifies to add to their funding.

]]> By: Jrob http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67115 Jrob Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:13:03 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67115 Nick, We're talking across each other, not TO each other. Obviously I wasn't being clear in my comments. (Sorry, about that. This sort of "government gone amok" story makes me so angry, I tend to type faster than I think. lol) I, obviously, hope the poor guy gets his money back. But IMO the mere presence of illegal drugs, plus the unusually high amount of money, gives the government grounds to establish the probabilty that the money is being used in an illegal activity. Thus the asset forfeiture. While I agree that it's possible for him to win, it's not an open/shut case by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, the guy's gonna have a much harder time than you or I would because the government took EVERY LAST DIME THE GUY HAD. Unless a lawyer who understands asset forfeiture civil law is willing to take the case pro bono, he's got an uphill battle. Nick,

We’re talking across each other, not TO each other. Obviously I wasn’t being clear in my comments. (Sorry, about that. This sort of “government gone amok” story makes me so angry, I tend to type faster than I think. lol)

I, obviously, hope the poor guy gets his money back.

But IMO the mere presence of illegal drugs, plus the unusually high amount of money, gives the government grounds to establish the probabilty that the money is being used in an illegal activity. Thus the asset forfeiture. While I agree that it’s possible for him to win, it’s not an open/shut case by any stretch of the imagination.

IMO, the guy’s gonna have a much harder time than you or I would because the government took EVERY LAST DIME THE GUY HAD. Unless a lawyer who understands asset forfeiture civil law is willing to take the case pro bono, he’s got an uphill battle.

]]> By: Nick T http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67066 Nick T Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:32:57 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67066 Jrob, It has nothing to do with the difference in criminal v. civil standards. It has to do with the fact that HE has the burden of proof and NOT the government. Preponderence of evidence is the lowest standard in the law - essentially 51%. It is not *impossible* to prove a negative in all cases. He can merely take the witness stand and say "I have never sold any drugs to anyone ever/I have never earned a single dime from selling drugs," and if the fact-finder (not sure if such a hearing has a jury) finds him to be credible, then the government will have to get off its ass and prove some stuff or lose. As I stated, simple witness testimony is legally sufficient to satisfy any burden of proof - even beyond a reasonable doubt. I.e. you don't *need* documentary or scientific evidence to prove anything in a court of law (other than particular cases like say, paternity). In addition, though I'm not sure, I think you are confusing the issue: He does not have to prove that he didn't buy those drugs with cash. It's about the specific money and whether THAT money was involved in an illegal transaction. If he bought the weed with cash, that money is gone now. At least I hope to hell that's how it works, otherwise they could just seize everyone's money anytime they were caught with drugs. Jrob,
It has nothing to do with the difference in criminal v. civil standards. It has to do with the fact that HE has the burden of proof and NOT the government. Preponderence of evidence is the lowest standard in the law - essentially 51%. It is not *impossible* to prove a negative in all cases. He can merely take the witness stand and say “I have never sold any drugs to anyone ever/I have never earned a single dime from selling drugs,” and if the fact-finder (not sure if such a hearing has a jury) finds him to be credible, then the government will have to get off its ass and prove some stuff or lose.

As I stated, simple witness testimony is legally sufficient to satisfy any burden of proof - even beyond a reasonable doubt. I.e. you don’t *need* documentary or scientific evidence to prove anything in a court of law (other than particular cases like say, paternity).

In addition, though I’m not sure, I think you are confusing the issue: He does not have to prove that he didn’t buy those drugs with cash. It’s about the specific money and whether THAT money was involved in an illegal transaction. If he bought the weed with cash, that money is gone now. At least I hope to hell that’s how it works, otherwise they could just seize everyone’s money anytime they were caught with drugs.

]]> By: Ochressandro http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67044 Ochressandro Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:22:26 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67044 Buzz: No fear, I'm angry at them too. But it's the guys on the ground that actually commit these crimes. They <b>choose</b> to steal the accumulated wealth of a lifetime from people like this, and then hide behind the defence of "enforcing the law". Buzz: No fear, I’m angry at them too. But it’s the guys on the ground that actually commit these crimes. They choose to steal the accumulated wealth of a lifetime from people like this, and then hide behind the defence of “enforcing the law”.

]]> By: Web 2.0 Announcer http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67005 Web 2.0 Announcer Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:20:34 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67005 <strong>The Agitator » Blog Archive » Another Asset Forfeiture Outrage...</strong> [...][...]... The Agitator » Blog Archive » Another Asset Forfeiture Outrage…

[...][...]…

]]> By: Jrob http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67004 Jrob Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:03:45 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-67004 Mitch, Not in asset forfeiture cases. This is a CIVIL matter now. Basically, the government has "arrested" the money, and the original owner is only an "interested third party" to the case now. The government now has legal claim to the money, and the prior owner must prove in a court that HIS claim has greater standing than the present owner. Considering the amount, he might have a chance using a disproportional penalty defense. But, truthfully, I wouldn't count on it not being laughed out of court. Mitch,
Not in asset forfeiture cases. This is a CIVIL matter now. Basically, the government has “arrested” the money, and the original owner is only an “interested third party” to the case now. The government now has legal claim to the money, and the prior owner must prove in a court that HIS claim has greater standing than the present owner.

Considering the amount, he might have a chance using a disproportional penalty defense. But, truthfully, I wouldn’t count on it not being laughed out of court.

]]> By: Mitchell http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66994 Mitchell Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:01:27 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66994 "He has to prove by a prepoderance of the evidence that the money WASN’T used for crimes." Isn't it just the other way around? Shouldn't they prove that in fact he was dealing with and earning money with drugs? Not quilty until proven ... “He has to prove by a prepoderance of the evidence that the money WASN’T used for crimes.”

Isn’t it just the other way around? Shouldn’t they prove that in fact he was dealing with and earning money with drugs?
Not quilty until proven …

]]> By: Terry http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66993 Terry Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:31:56 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66993 It would appear that armed burglars were successful in robbing this man after all. It would appear that armed burglars were successful in robbing this man after all.

]]> By: sad sea lion http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66989 sad sea lion Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:50:32 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66989 that's horrible do these people have no shame? that’s horrible

do these people have no shame?

]]> By: Persona non grata http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66983 Persona non grata Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:58:53 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66983 Thomas More on governments: "They are a conspiracy of the rich, who, on pretence of managing the public, only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they find out, first, that they may, without danger, preserve all that they have so aquired, and then that they may engage the poor to toil and labour for them, at as low rates as possible and oppress them as they please." Thomas More on governments:

“They are a conspiracy of the rich, who, on pretence of managing the public, only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they find out, first, that they may, without danger, preserve all that they have so aquired, and then that they may engage the poor to toil and labour for them, at as low rates as possible and oppress them as they please.”

]]> By: Jrob http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66982 Jrob Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:00:19 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66982 Nick, The problem is the civil v. criminal standards. He has to prove by a prepoderance of the evidence that the money WASN'T used for crimes. The state can easily just sit back and do nothing, and keep his money. We know somebody in the house was engaged in criminal enterprise. Even if the person responsible can prove THAT dope was purchased with a check or credit card, they'll have to prove they NEVER exchanged cash for drugs, or vis-a-versa. Proving a negative is impossible, for obvious reasons. The only hope this guy has is... Nevermind, we're talking about da war on droogs. This fella's boned. Nick,
The problem is the civil v. criminal standards. He has to prove by a prepoderance of the evidence that the money WASN’T used for crimes. The state can easily just sit back and do nothing, and keep his money.
We know somebody in the house was engaged in criminal enterprise. Even if the person responsible can prove THAT dope was purchased with a check or credit card, they’ll have to prove they NEVER exchanged cash for drugs, or vis-a-versa.
Proving a negative is impossible, for obvious reasons. The only hope this guy has is…
Nevermind, we’re talking about da war on droogs. This fella’s boned.

]]> By: ZappaCrappa http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66978 ZappaCrappa Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:50:12 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2007/12/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/#comment-66978 He didn't trust banks. Now he doesn't trust the police and especially, doesn't trust the government. I don't blame him. I'm with him. He didn’t trust banks. Now he doesn’t trust the police and especially, doesn’t trust the government. I don’t blame him. I’m with him.

]]>