They make a mockery of the rule of law and the Constitutional protections supposedly operating in America.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 09/28/2009 9:20:36 AM PDT by Bodleian_Girl
A Chilton County [AL] woman is fighting an effort by federal prosecutors to seize her home and 40 acres in a marijuana case against her husband, who committed suicide during his trial.
Mara Lynn Williams, 56, a cancer survivor who works as a nurse at Jackson Hospital in Montgomery, said she knew that her husband, Royce, 53, used marijuana for chronic pain after multiple surgeries.
But she said she did not know he was growing it on their acreage, and she was not charged in the criminal case. Her husband was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot in a car in May as a jury was deliberating the drug charges against him.
Mara Lynn Williams said it is wrong for federal agents to seek to take her home, which she and her husband built, and about 40 acres that have been in his family for generations.
"It is not morally right. My husband has paid with his life. What else do they want?" Williams told the Montgomery Advertiser in a story Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.al.com ...
Since he was never convicted, what can they do? This is an interesting test of the law and its motives.
My black and white mind says that if they want the property they are going to have to press the same charges against her and take it to trial.
For the children.
Sounds like a states right case. If federal prosecutors are the ones attempting to seize the property, who does the property go to if seized? The federal government?
Why would a state allow this to happen? Do they get their cut out of the proceeds of the sale?
They are from the government, so they can do what they please to "help" us. That's their job, that's what they do.
I recall that a conviction is not needed for seizure. Often the property is sold at auction even before a trial. That was the case 10-15 years ago, I doubt it’s gotten more fair.
You’re making too much sense. The feds can grab property “used in the commission of a crime.” They don’t have to prove the owner committed the crime or even charge him/her. The burden is on the owner to make a case to get the property returned. It’s un-American.
They make a mockery of the rule of law and the Constitutional protections supposedly operating in America.
Glad to see that the government is once again protecting us from those evil, vicious drug users. Meanwhile street gangs continue to terrorize our cities unabated.
They will get her land, and it will be sworn agents of the state that make this possible.
>>I recall that a conviction is not needed for seizure. Often the property is sold at auction even before a trial. That was the case 10-15 years ago, I doubt it’s gotten more fair.<<
It may have happened, but it does not mean it was legal, moral, or constitutional. The reason I used the phrase “black and white” in my post is that I was trying to say that, based on what I understand about the rule of law and the constitution, ones property cannot be confiscated based on an alleged crime until the crime is proven in a court of law.
That is, unless the person to whom the property belonged is so guilty that they choose to allow it in order to stay out of jail. If the person is truly innocent, I don’t see how, if the person fights it and has evidence on their side, the property can remain seized. I could be wrong. Part of my position is based on my God given sense of fairness.
It's about confiscating your property!
In one prominent SoCal case 5 or so years ago the authorities targeted a man with drug charges for the sole purpose of seizing his land; subsequent investigations showed there was one very thin allegation of pot once having been grown on the land, and that informant had been richly paid, and he later recanted. Oh! No pot was ever found on the land.
They also simply opened fire on him, killing him. He’d never been arrested for anything.
Basically, the treatment afforded this law-abiding man was no different than someone could expect in the Congo.
Transfer of wealth from citizens to govt under any pretense.
And therein lies the problem. The government should not be able to seize anything without due process.
Property rights are already well dead in this country.
Regards.
The seizure is a separate civil case without ties to the criminal case.
In this case here it will hinge on whether the guy's wife knew he was growing *and* selling pot. She's already admitted she knew he was smoking it and if they had only found a few pot plants he was growing for personal use they probably wouldn't have thought twice about it. But they found 408 plants - a good indication he was a supplier. So was the wife a willing party to the grow operation or an innocent owner?
The interesting question here for the anti-WOD posters; if pot were legal, should growing 408 pot plants and selling them on the side also be legal or against the law?
Utter BS. It’s nearly unfathomable that this can happen in this country.
Yeah, we are hung up on that arcane concept known as Due Process.
Maybe, it’s been going on for decades, and is tried and true under our legal system. This woman will lose her home, guaranteed.
Maybe a real estate lawyer could help her here. Resubdivide the tract to carve out the parcel where the weed was grown. Make it a separate piece of land, thereby minimizing her potential loss.
she should defend her property
You bring up interesting points. I do think that they should have to prosecute her to get her land.
I also think it should be legalized. And I haven’t touched the stuff since 1977. I am getting more and more libertarian as I get older.
I believe you’re talking about Donald Scott and the Trails End Ranch. The government had been trying for years to buy the land, but Scott refused.
It does seem like an oversight to omit her from the original case. I wonder if she was co-owner of record at the time, or if she received ownership through her late husband's succession?
Pot Growers Rule #4 - Never grow on your own property
They don’t have to file charges to sieze the land. In asset forfieture, the asset is presumed guily. She has to prove otherwise.
Ping
/
>”It is not morally right. My husband has paid with his life. What else do they want?”
Your land, apparently.
Only if you give the government 80% of the sales price like the tobacco companies.
408 marijuana plants and $18k in cash
Medicinal, huh?
Sock cuckers have turned it into an industry
http://www.acafs.org/Media/MediaManager/asset_forfeiture_best_practices_8X101.pdf
The forfeiture suit is usually filed against the property, not the owner.
I agree, on all counts. This government has to be hemmed in on ALL sides. These seizure laws are pathetically unconstitutional. Legalizing marijuana would be step in the right direction on liberty.
One organization that I know of is fighting back. http://www.fear.org/
>>The forfeiture suit is usually filed against the property, not the owner.<<
I understand that a corporation can be a “person”, but not property. How do you sue a “non-person”? How do you sue a piece of dirt?
I’ve seen court dockets of cases in which a handgun was charged. Looked pretty silly, but there it was.
Lots of them for any contraband associated with a criminal case. It is amazing how many civil suits the DA is in vs an inanimate object.
They do the same thing with CP now. As “restitution” for the victims. No one is going to say anything negative about it because its a hot button issue with the public. Not trying to belittle the crime, but it does make me wonder just how far this slippery slope will go.
Oh yes, and Obama has a CP lawyer (or child killing lawyer, take your pick) in the Dept of Justice. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
http://www.voicescarryblog.com/obama-appoints-pond-scum-porn-lawyer-to-justice-dept/
I'm in Mobile and everyone here is always happy each year when the Chilton County Peaches arrive at the fruit/produce markets here.
If pot itself was legal, I don't see any reason why growing and selling 408 plants should be illegal. (Assuming that growing the plants didn't violate some unrelated law, and likewise for the sales).
Why treat it any differently than beer? As far as I know Coors, Budweiser, etc. are permitted to produce and sell millions of barrels a year. They may be subject to certain industrial, environmental, and tax regulations when producing greater quantities, but the production itself does not seem to be capped.
what ever happened to LA County Sheriff’s deputy Gary Spencer(who shot Mr Scott)? Nothing that I was able to find. As far as I know he’s still a deputy.
Ping!
They’re good stuff. My parents live in Shelby and we can usually find them at roadside stands all over during the late spring/early summer weeks.
My mom makes a mean peach jam with ‘em!
Making beer for personal use is legal. However, the production of moonshine is still illegal. I don't know where the line is drawn on how much is too much or what one has to do to be a "commercial" moonshine seller.
“Do they get their cut out of the proceeds of the sale?”
You bet they do!
Good question! The case disappeared after DA of Ventura County Bradbury filed suit.
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.